Safe Speed Forums

Yeah - we're getting there. So what percentage of the vehicles observed were actually being aggressive? (I appreciate that there are problems with the degree of aggression, so you'll need to judge ' aggression sufficient to have a significant negative impact on safety'.) It doesn't have to be accurate, and I won't even hold you to it.

But the bottom line is that you're going to have to admit that the percentage of drivers who are actually aggressive is pretty tiny.

I'll then say (of course) that if we're going to successfully target these people we'll only get a result with systems that accurately recognise aggressive behaviour. And for now the only system that can make that recognition wears blue.

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

The percentage of hardcore crappy or agro drivers is tiny and they cause an inordinate amount of grief. The high number of drivers who could score much better (lower agro, higher attention) also cause lots of unnecessary grief, as they outnumber the agro-drivers by 50 to 1.

Sloppy drivers have an inordinate influence over the road culture, and this sloppiness allows the hardcore agro boys to act selfishly, and masks their presence.



I have no problem with blue cameras! But there has never been enough cops to reduce sloppy mediocrity, because motorists won’t fork out for them. If costs (and taxes) must be kept low, there will be pressure to take the froth off the top with systems of automation.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I disagree with the central conclusion (emphasised).

Are we really worried about a driver who occasionally loses his temper and makes an aggressive driving manoeuvre?

Are we really worried about a child who occasionally loses his temper in the classroom?

Are we really worried about an adult who occasionally loses his temper and shouts at a sales assistant?

Yes, if that lapse is the direct cause of a collision/death/injury/stabbing etc but the law is there to deal with that. But the system (road system/driving system/social system) is generally extremely error tolerant (and "error" encompasses a deliberately aggressive act).

Of course we would prefer that such acts don't happen but this is the real world and everbody is flawed.

I don't think we need to make concerted efforts to seek to remedy the behaviour of those who are guilty of an occasional lapse because it is still only in 1 case out of a large number that the result of such lapse is seriously harmful. I'm not saying we should forget about them either - but the place where we need to concentrate our efforts and resources, surely, is on the very many fewer individuals (whether drivers, children in school or adults in society generally) who are consistently aggressive, because that is where the high risk really lies.

But that's good news isn't it? You're saying that good drivers can be relied upon, and that the majority of so-so drivers only do something stupid occasionally. Drivers are probably safer than you'd thought. It also tells us who to concentrate on first to improve road safety - the drivers outside these two groups who for whatever reason are a danger most or all of the time. Say the so-so drivers only screw up on average 10% of the time. Even if we didn't get the dangerous group off the road, how much safer would it be if we were able to turn the mostly dangerous drivers into 10%ers? (Not a suggestion, just chucked in for discussion).

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

Another thought for the discussion...

Maybe the occasionally bad drivers ARE a problem as well. Firstly there's lots more of them than habitually bad drivers, so if they each commit just one or 2 dangerous acts then this could amount to more of a risk than the few drivers who commit dangerous acts all the time.

Also, dangerous drivers are probably a danger to themselves too, so their survival chances (either by death or losing licence/ban etc) are lower than the occasionally bad driver.

The occasionally bad driver will likely have had a lapse in concentration causing them to do something dangerous. They will be unfamiliar with the situation that they've got themselves into and will be less prepared to get out of the situation without a mishap. The habitually bad driver will be more familiar with the situation and possibly better equipped to get out of it 'safely'

You could also with equal validity say that "stupid blokes cause road rage as well".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

:oops: I didn't mean to suggest that they weren't a problem. Just that we might see more of an effect by concentrating on the habitually bad ones. But your point about the numbers of occasionally bad drivers outweighing the habitually bad is a good one that hadn't occured to me . I suppose it all depends on how many miles are driven my habitually bad drivers, how many by the occasionally bad and how often the occasionally bad tend to screw up.

Survival chances? Sounds very Darwinian. Let natural selection take care of the stupid driver gene, eh? If only there wasn't the risk of them doing so in company. Not sure about the bans bit though. The ones that worry me most are those that ignore bans. Middle aged business types banned for an extra glass of Chateau La Plank are likely to respect the ban, but I'm not so sure about the chav banned for more general offences.


I think you're right about the occasionally bad drivers, but often they'll be saved by the reactions of someone else. That someone else might even be another occasionally bad driver who is not currently having an off moment. A crash is only likely if both drivers have had a lapse, and if we're talking about momentary lapses it'd be pretty unlucky to have both occur at just the right moment for the two to collide as a result.

The habitually bad driver is an entirely different matter, I feel. Yes, they may have a sort of advatage from having been in the situation before, but I think that is more than compensated by the fact that they are likely to have an unrealistic over confidence in their abilities. More importantly, if a driver gets themselves in a dangerous situation with which they're familiar it implies that they learnt nothing from it the first time. Overconfidence and a failure to learn from mistakes is not a good combination, and it means they're likely to carry on doing it. I think it's kind of what makes them habitually bad in the first place.

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

That's true - we cannot directly control stupid people who cause road rage, but we can continue to drive rationally and decide not to become enraged by them. It's another reason to try to fit in and obey the highway code - only a misfit would get “enraged” by following someone simply obeying the speed limit <can you imagine being like that?>.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Basingwerk,

I have laid off getting embroiled with chatting to you because you are quite plainly a troll, out to wind up as many people as possible with your warped ideas on how the real world should be.

Why don't you play with your biros for a while - the blue ones are quite good and they command a fair amount of smart money too

[In the style of PaulF, saying it like it is]
Better still, why don't you just lay off the constant ad-hominen attacks on Basingwerk (and Camera Operator for that matter). Let the rest of us decide if he's a troll or not through ongoing debate; debate which has been going on since long before you appeared.[PaulF mode off]

<many days pass>



That was a long cup of tea - do us all a favour, and have another one!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Echoing Rigpig here. PaulF, some of us have been sparring with basingwerk for months. He can be frustrating, opinionated, dogmatic, controversial and bloody hard work . He's had me that close to nutting the keyboard. OTOH he's stuck around knowing that all us anti-camera types are usually going to argue with many of his posts, and is honest enough to have said that he's modified his position a bit towards ours. In addition I don't recall basingwerk posting anything I'd call proper troll style flamebait, and we've had our fair share of trolls here. They invariably get bored or banned before long, whereas basingwerk is at least prepared to stick around and debate, albeit mostly from an opposing point of view. In some ways he does us a favour - there's no debate without opposition. Besides, he's going to lose the argument when the cameras come down and the casualty rate improves. Ain't that right, bw mate?

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

Well, what I meant was more to ask why we tend to assosciate expensive cars (Bavarian made in particular ) with pushy and over-confident drivers. And its most certainly a generalisation, albeit probably an exaggerated one, that persists.
Its like that Toyota advert isn't it, the one with the boasting businessmen in the squash court. To be "earmarked for the board" or "quadruple ones turnover" or "velocitate ones portfolio ready for new dynamic marketing in a global megasphere" -or whatever it is business people do, you've got to have a few brains and perhaps be prepared to stand on your best mates gonads to get what you want.
They get what they want by being pushy and assertive and over-confiedent perhaps, but they've also got brains.
And yes, there's a little personal bias in there I can't afford a BMW

I get the impression that you are championing the cause of "passive aggression"... We've all seen people who do it... Trundling along like mobile road-blocks secure in their own self-righteousness, trilby-hat, as often as not, firmly wedged on the exact centre of the head... You can almost hear them thinking "I'm not getting out of anyone's way, I've as much right to be here as anyone else, look at that fool!" - not giving a moment's thought to anything other than their own selfishness, yet never wondering why they're so often the "victims" of road-rage.

There are times when it's better to swallow your righteousness and let some loony get on his way, rather than play at "cop".


No. For one, I never wear a trilby...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

As you wish, RigPig, as you wish. But our friend will keep spouting his chameleon like drivel for as long as you entertain him. And as for Scamera Operator, by all accounts he is transfixed by me when out nicking ordinary motorists. But let me not interrupt your entertainment or train of thought.

Some of what you say is actually fair comment, GatsoBait - to be fair, the only reason why I have stuck my to the point troll comment in is because every time you get this man nailed down he magically moves the goalposts and changes his argument slightly: As he has often said, he takes immeasurable pleasure out of the sufferings of others with his cute comments - that's why I view his posts without rose tinted spectacles and take them for what they are.

But that's just my view - enjoy your debate, if you're enjoying it, by all means!

It isn't about you getting enraged by others, it's about others getting enraged by you!
In an earlier statement, you said

Now let's take your statement about the slacker in the van shall we....

How on earth can you possibly know whether it is a courier who simply wants to get to his destination quickly so he can get on with his next job to earn more money, or whether that "slacker in the van" is actually carrying vital blood supplies that are needed yesterday by a hospital that is still miles away?

The simple answer is, you don't have a clue why that "slacker in the van" is in an obvious hurry.
Even BiB advise these days that if it is obvious that somebody wants to get past you, then you should accomodate them regardless of how bad their driving appears to be, or indeed if they are exceeding the posted speed limit.


You should watch a few more of the many "reality" shows that are on TV.
There was one episode of "Britain's Worst Drivers" shown on TV one night, and there was some "holier than thou" prick who used to spend most of his time behind the wheel purposely obstructing those who wished to overtake him on motorways & the like because he was already doing the maximum speed allowed by law (it wasn't you was it?).

Anyway, at the end of the video clip, BiB came on and their response was that the guy with the "righteous" attitude was more of a danger to other road users than those who were exceeding the posted limit and that if push came to shove, they would be nicking the 70mph merchant for obstruction rather than the "speeders".

Stick to the posted speed limit by all means if that is how you prefer to drive BW, but failing to accomodate other road users because they are in a hurry (or simply because of they vehicle they drive) makes you more of an inconsiderate (and possibly dangerous) driver than the guy with his foot down.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Probably becuase he was obstructing the course of justice - with him in the way they can't catch them in the speed traps!

I'm pretty sure they don't courier blood in rusting Transit vans



This is the bottom line isn't it? None of us holds the authority to act as a policeman (except IanH, Cotswold et al ), forcing other road users to comply with the law.

I agree with your argument Observer.

From my own perspective, as an offence detector and reporter, and when on routine (rather than intelligence led) patrol, I'll witness the offending behaviour and decide how best to deal with it. I will pay little heed to whether it's a 'one off' or a chronic competence or attitude problem (with certain exceptions). Often it may be difficult to tell from the evidence available. The 'chronic' will acquire his points over time whereas the 'one off' will often get his 3 points and hopefully learn from that particular moment of impetuosity.

Additionally, intelligence led, targetted work will affect the driver who is knowingly offending as soon as he gets into a driver's seat, or whose driving has been recognised by complaint as worthy of targetting.


In operating this way I believe that the likelihood of licence loss is proportionate to risk.

It's easy to see how remote enforcement can interrupt that intercourse on numerous levels.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian