Safe Speed Forums

Oh you are absolutely right of course but there will absolutley be those who see assertiveness as aggressiveness. It's a matter of personality and which model of driving the individual carries around in their head.
How do you go about educating the more timid (for want of a better word) drivers that other motorists want to make progress more positively than they do and that, for example, overtaking can be done safely with their co-operation and that being overtaken is neither an aggressive maneouvre nor an affront to their manhood.

That takes me round full circle to one of my favourite hobby horses: attitude training.

We don't even attempt it do we? In order to get through the driving test we teach people the mechanical process of negotiating an urban situation at low speed. Ok, we now have a "hazard perception" test which gives a tiny hint about observation, but nowhere do we actively deal with driver attitude.

Yet driver attitude is clearly far and away the most important thing in determining future risk. If we have the right attitude then we can learn all the car control and observation skills we ever need more or less unaided, with the wrong attitude we just won't bother.

And this is just yet another "attitude problem". If we trained drivers to correctly interpret the intentions and "body language" of other drivers they would have a much better sense of proportion about the driving population, and be better able to deal with it safely.

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

They bunch to stop overtakers getting in safely – leaving gaps encourages overtakers to overtake. Like a canteen queue, the goal of drivers is to get to the front. Allowing “assertive” or “aggressive” drivers to ‘push in’, does not achieve that. Game theory suggests that tailgating is only an inevitable way of not getting pushed to the back of the queue if we tolerate “assertive” or “aggressive” driving. If we do not have as much “assertive” or “aggressive” driving, people at the front might be able to slacken off, and everybody could calm down, but our culture allows too many “me first” chumps, and nowadays, anybody can get his hands a very fast car indeed for next to nothing.



There are many things we could do to reduce “assertive” or “aggressive” driving. Put the law on them, for example. It isn’t all humans who have a poor nature – mostly, it’s young blokes, or old blokes who still haven’t reached adulthood.



Not much – the road system contains hundreds of years of effort, i.e. hundreds or thousands of billions. Plus, the motor lobby has well organised political opposition now, and will never have the same power as before. I think we have to continue to invest in road supply, but also reduce demand.



I want the boneheads to have a short, sharp, shock treatment! Like a £60 fine and 3 points, for example!

PS: Sorry - I slipped back ito my old ways at the end there

_________________
I stole this .sig

Reading that back, I can see I used 'assertive' and 'aggressive' as if they are the same. I don't think they are - 'assertive' is OK sometimes (irrespective of the motive) if it’s effect on safety is positive or neutral.

The type of 'assertive' driving used by showoffs to dominate other road users is not OK at all. Only idiots do that.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I don't think 'dominate' is the right word. I saw a truck driver swerve to the right to discourage (even prevent) a deadly overtake a few days ago. Clearly assertive, clearly dominating, but very much in the interests of safety.

If we're trying to get the words right, I believe that modern usage of 'assertive' (as in 'assertiveness training') specifically excludes aggressive and selfish behviour. Assertive is clear, obvious, definite and goal oriented all of which are road driving characteristics that I see as very positive.

Aggressive driving seems to me to be primarilly about intimidation.

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

A few years ago my employer sent all staff on a 'drive and survive' course that actually promoted 'Assertive' driving.

Am a now to conclude from Basingwerk that the training was flawed. I certainly don't think I'm more inclined to 'show off' or 'dominate' another motorists.

Basingwerk, is an assertive driver a greater risk than a nervous driver?

Acklowledging that this question was posed of BW not me, I reckon this is one of those open-ended questions that would have the scenario builders' imaginations running riot as they attempted to dream up a situation which proved their own persepective
On their own, both could progress along our roads infinitly without incident if left to their own devices.
Problems occur when the one meets the other as the two models of driving, like potassium and water, often produce a spontaneous reaction when introduced.

I thought it would keep him busy.

Also acklowledging that this question was posed of BW not me...

Nervous => indecisive* => ambiguous behaviour => less predictable => dangerous on road.

Assertive => confident => clear intentions => highly predictable => safer on road.

* when confronted with an "increased risk" situation, such as a complex junction.

My opinion? I'd steer a middle course - a calm and tolerant style of driving is best, both for you, and everybody else.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Interesting word, assert. A typical definition of ‘assert’ shows where the dichotomy lies.


Words like "compel", "forcefully" or "aggressively" don’t sit well with the ‘modern usage’. But we know what you mean! It is any oddity of the English language that asserting something can often come over as forceful or aggressive, yet someone who is assertive is not aggressive nor selfish!

This is just wordplay - let’s keep the good parts of assertiveness, and jettison the agro.

Of course, the other point is that excess speed is another form of aggressive driving that we can do without!

PS: I'm doing it again, aren't I?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Are we perhaps getting more closely aligned then?

I mean, no-one on this site is advocating the use of excess speed, are they?

In fact, if you look a bit more deeply at some of the posts you'll frequently see the same adjectives cropping up: words like reasonable, appropriate, calm and so on. The only thing we need to shift is this mental block you seem to have along the lines of "speeding = aggression" etc - it doesn't!

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

Not only am I not advocating the use of excess speed, I am always ready to condemn it. The problem is in identifying what constitues excess speed, and inevitably it is a matter of opinion and judgement.

My speed outside of built-up areas is often well above the NSL, but I don't think I do it in an impatient and aggressive fashion. I cetainly hope it is not felt to be like that by other road users in the vicinity.

I don't think high speed need be seen as aggressive, it very much depends on where and how it is done. Even when being a bit naughty regarding the NSL I still think in terms of calm, relaxed, orderly progress that does not cause concern to others, which means not crowding other people and being impatient and intolerant. It should always be done in a manner that is reasonably compatible with the style of progress being made by your fellow road users, IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

You've gone from "assertive" to "assert", which changes things very subtly. Since you brought up the wordplay and definition thing I got the dictionary out.

assertive adj 1 confident and direct in dealing with others.
2 given to making assertions; dogmatic or aggressive
Synonyms - confident, aggressive, can-do, decided, decisive, dogmatic, domineering, emphatic, feisty, firm, forceful, forward, insistent, in-your-face, overbearing, positive, pushy, self-assured, strong-willed
Antonyms - backward, bashful, diffident, hesitant, insecure, meek, modest, reserved, retiring, self-concious, self-effeacing, sheepish, shrinking, shy, timid, timorous, unassertive, unobtrusive

I underlined what I think are desirable parts. I think that's what most round here, and probably most drivers, would think of when talking about being assertive on the road.

Yep, and you've got me at it now.

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

Headlights ON, gap opens, full throttle, stay as far to the right as possible, watch each vehicle being overtaken for indications they might pull out, get past the lot as quickly as possible, slow down to normal pace.

Sorry if this describes the lunge approach but that's how I do it.

I have performed that manoeuvre hundreds of times, sometimes past queues of up to 20 cars and have never experienced a "moment".

The shorter the time on the wrong side of the road the better.

I am a hoon, I do drive a very fast car, I do spend a lot of time above the speed limit, and I am always assertive but I have never been involved in a crash that was caused, or contributed to, by me.

OK, maybe this is greedy behaviour but so is driving slowly and leaving very small gaps. I have a right to travel at the speed limit (if safe to do so) so I will overtake whenever I feel it is safe to do so.

Having a very powerful car also means I can overtake in places where others could not possibly hope to do so safely, so why should I wait for them to find a long enough break?

I do not drive dangerously and I try at all times to be courteous to other road users. I leave gaps, allow people out of side streets, allow others to filter in front of me, give way to pedestrians when turning and always indicate my intentions clearly. When I want to change lanes and there is a gap I will indicate and make the lane change. I see many others indicate, look around, effectively beg to be let in and get stuck in the wrong lane. Is this safer than being assertive?

I know this post is all over the place but I get really frustrated being labelled as aggressive or a lunatic because I drive over the speed limit or make long overtaking manoeuvres.

Edit: Please note - this is an assertive post, I am not trying to be aggressive!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Hell yes. I'm very worried about it really. I'm worried that a little knowledge is dangerous, and if we go part way toward training in overtaking then we'll raise confidence more than skill and increase danger.

I'm also worried that we don't train drivers in overtaking at all. Most folk 'learn it wrong' from their own experience. It isn't the length of time you spend on the 'wrong' side of the road that matters. It's 'have you gathered enough information to know that it is safe'?

And I'm extremely worried that we're enforcing the stupid HGV40 speed limit on trunk routes and causing more frustrated overtaking. Frustrated overtaking by underskilled drivers is pretty much as bad as it gets.

All this worry leads me to see some benefit in banning overtaking on single carriageway roads. But of course that would bring serious problems too.

Like many things in driving I think we had the balance pretty good 20 years ago. Can't we just wind the clock back and run these last 20 years properly?

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

Now you're playing my tune

At least you say you are sorry. You should talk to my mate, Rich, who also had a German car and used your approach. There was a twist in the tail when he finally did crash - he smashed into a copper! The beemer was written off, so now he drives a little toyota like me - it's the only car he can afford to insure!

_________________
I stole this .sig

The roads are a LOT busier now than 20 years ago.

Back to overtaking...

Back when I was getting driving lessons things like parallel parking, 3-point turns, reverse into side street etc. were covered in reasonable detail but nothing was said about overtaking, not even advice on what to do. I suspect that overtaking is probably one of the most dangerous maneuvres in driving. Tuition reflected the content of the practical test.

Is it really very clever to provide training/testing on such techniques as parallel parking but miss out on much more dangerous techniques like overtaking? Are the newly qualified drivers expected to just know how to do it or simply not overtake?

I think we need to guard against what a sailor would call "rhumb line fixation", if I might explain...

When you are sailing from point A to point B, it is clearly useful to draw a line on the chart showing the ideal route, or "rhumb line". For arguments sake lets say that we are trying to sail the shortest route, so we simply draw a straight line from A to B.

The problem you now have to guard against is failing to realise that this line actually becomes irrelevant the moment you stray away from it; and thus falling into the trap of striving to get back to the original A-B line when in reality the ideal shortest route is now a straight line from (wherever-you-are) to B.

What we were doing 20 years ago wasn't ideal, but it was hopefully a point on a line taking us to where we needed to go. In the last ten years we have strayed from that line and indeed are now probably pointing away from the target! But the right course we need to set out is not back to where we were 20 years ago, but rather the shortest route from where we are now to where we were heading then.

Sorry if this is a bit of an abstract philosophical point, but I hope it still has some value.

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