reohn2 wrote:Totally. It's a free for all,no police no prospect of any,anytime soon,loonies abound on UK roads as a result.
I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that they are exactly in abundance, nor that they were exactly scarce when there was a more visible presence.
What I think has happened is that it's mainly that there are many many more of us out there on the roads, crammed more tightly, and getting techier as a result.
Whilst I agree there was never total adherence to the law,drivers weren't as downright selfish and reckless as they seem to be these days,bullying seems to be a way of driving life for many. There's a lot of goons out there and not many police.
I think we're probably agreeing more than disagreeing (as often!) - there's a deal more jostling and jockeying than there was - it's more like London was when I drove there regularly - just everywhere now, but the true "loons" are still mercifully few IMHO.
Psamathe wrote:I would agree. In fact I'm surprised the numbers are so low e.g. only 65% believe they are unlikely to be pulled-over for offences - I'd have expected more to believe in their own immunity judging from driving standards, etc. Same with 54% thinking they'd escape prosecution for mobile phone use; or maybe the missing number is that 99+% believe they will never even get spotted using their mobile phones (my 99+% not being just from my own opinion).
These are only the ones who will *admit* that they believe they can get away with it. There will be another proportion who regularly engage in this behaviour, but will not say that they believe they can get away with it because they fear the survey will not be anonymous, they answer with what they think is the best, socially acceptable answer, or for some superstitious reason (like they don't want to jinx having gotten away with it for the last 15 years )
But those attitudes around policing and the likelihood of detection don't necessarily mean that they would indulge in the practice themselves.
Psamathe wrote:I would agree. In fact I'm surprised the numbers are so low e.g. only 65% believe they are unlikely to be pulled-over for offences - I'd have expected more to believe in their own immunity judging from driving standards, etc. Same with 54% thinking they'd escape prosecution for mobile phone use; or maybe the missing number is that 99+% believe they will never even get spotted using their mobile phones (my 99+% not being just from my own opinion).
These are only the ones who will *admit* that they believe they can get away with it. There will be another proportion who regularly engage in this behaviour, but will not say that they believe they can get away with it because they fear the survey will not be anonymous, they answer with what they think is the best, socially acceptable answer, or for some superstitious reason (like they don't want to jinx having gotten away with it for the last 15 years )
Not to mention those who think they're right in the way drive,however wrong they are, as it's so ingrained in their driving nature.A classic example is close passes by drivers who think cyclists have no right to be on the road,let alone have the audacity to block their progress by taking a primary road position for their own safety.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Not investing in more police is financially ludicrous, the cost of not policing is far more costly than the damage done. Still when you have incidents at the extreme end being ignored by the police with no interest or charge or even worse when it gets to court the CPS are impotent, juries won't convict and judges with their heads up their arris ready with the moments inattention or other BS excuse to let them off lightly if indeed a guilty verdict is given it makes you wonder if the police are in fact worthwhile at all.
Might as well resort to vigilantism, oh wait, plod will soon be on your case for that
reohn2 wrote:Totally. It's a free for all,no police no prospect of any,anytime soon,loonies abound on UK roads as a result.
I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that they are exactly in abundance, nor that they were exactly scarce when there was a more visible presence.
What I think has happened is that it's mainly that there are many many more of us out there on the roads, crammed more tightly, and getting techier as a result.
Whilst I agree there was never total adherence to the law,drivers weren't as downright selfish and reckless as they seem to be these days,bullying seems to be a way of driving life for many. There's a lot of goons out there and not many police.
It was not possible to break the law so much back then because vehicles were less powerful, many were unable to reach the maximum speed limit or overheated on hills Then one had to wait for a while so the engine could cool down, carefully add water and continue
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Bonefishblues wrote:I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that they are exactly in abundance, nor that they were exactly scarce when there was a more visible presence.
What I think has happened is that it's mainly that there are many many more of us out there on the roads, crammed more tightly, and getting techier as a result.
Whilst I agree there was never total adherence to the law,drivers weren't as downright selfish and reckless as they seem to be these days,bullying seems to be a way of driving life for many. There's a lot of goons out there and not many police.
I think we're probably agreeing more than disagreeing (as often!) - there's a deal more jostling and jockeying than there was - it's more like London was when I drove there regularly - just everywhere now, but the true "loons" are still mercifully few IMHO.
I think the vast majority are unfit to drive Spend some time observing vehicles at a junction with a STOP sign and you will realise that hardly any can even read Alternative facts welcome
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
reohn2 wrote:Whilst I agree there was never total adherence to the law,drivers weren't as downright selfish and reckless as they seem to be these days,bullying seems to be a way of driving life for many. There's a lot of goons out there and not many police.
I think we're probably agreeing more than disagreeing (as often!) - there's a deal more jostling and jockeying than there was - it's more like London was when I drove there regularly - just everywhere now, but the true "loons" are still mercifully few IMHO.
I think the vast majority are unfit to drive Spend some time observing vehicles at a junction with a STOP sign and you will realise that hardly any can even read Alternative facts welcome
Were that the case it would be utter carnage on a daily basis, which manifestly isn't the case. Considering the pressure on road space, most people get along with each other most of the time. Of course the times when that's not the case will always be foremost in the mind.
That said, there's a big case to be made for both better road design to be routine, not the exception, and ongoing driver education, such as the Public Education Films of yore.
thirdcrank wrote: Either way, it's a trend which seems unlikely to be reversed. It's not something which benefits cyclists or vulnerable road users more generally.
The way things are, bad driving tends to be rewarded in that drivers take liberties and there's little downside.
Finally, the AA, or the bit of it that does this sort of research is a pro-motoring organisation, yet it seems to be increasingly supporting more enforcement as more drivers come to appreciate the problems caused to all, by the antics of some.
Enforcement may come and go as will public opinion - witness drunk driving which is now socially unacceptable and as someone posted up thread, even mobile phone use might go that way.
But for me the shift has to be towards physical constraint in the road environment (and I don't mean segregation which IMV is making matters worse). It could also mean stronger "signalling" and I personally value 20 mph zones in this respect. I was driving in east London at Christmas for the first time in decades and was impressed (staggered?) by the 20 mph main road speed limits and associated cameras.
I don't question the importance of good traffic policing but trying to catch misdemeanours that happen fleetingly seems a Fool's Errand.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
horizon wrote:Enforcement may come and go as will public opinion - witness drunk driving which is now socially unacceptable and as someone posted up thread, even mobile phone use might go that way.
But for me the shift has to be towards physical constraint in the road environment (and I don't mean segregation which IMV is making matters worse). It could also mean stronger "signalling" and I personally value 20 mph zones in this respect. I was driving in east London at Christmas for the first time in decades and was impressed (staggered?) by the 20 mph main road speed limits and associated cameras.
I don't question the importance of good traffic policing but trying to catch misdemeanours that happen fleetingly seems a Fool's Errand.
Much agreement with this - I personally think that mobile use is already well on its way, BTW
The utility cyclist wrote:Not investing in more police is financially ludicrous, the cost of not policing is far more costly than the damage done. Still when you have incidents at the extreme end being ignored by the police with no interest or charge or even worse when it gets to court the CPS are impotent, juries won't convict and judges with their heads up their arris ready with the moments inattention or other BS excuse to let them off lightly if indeed a guilty verdict is given it makes you wonder if the police are in fact worthwhile at all.
Might as well resort to vigilantism, oh wait, plod will soon be on your case for that :roll: :twisted:
(Re: vigilantism) Which in some respects is what we are already seeing. For example, communities getting speed cameras and getting training and setting their own speed traps in their area (OK, can't get points form them but I understood it is "recorded"). For example (as I understand it)the increasing numbers of people submitting video evidence of illegal driving to the Police (probably helped by the decreasing cost of cameras).
thirdcrank wrote:Finally, the AA, or the bit of it that does this sort of research is a pro-motoring organisation, yet it seems to be increasingly supporting more enforcement as more drivers come to appreciate the problems caused to all, by the antics of some.
Also, far more motorists are injured on the roads than any other category - about 120'000/year in https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... e-2017.pdf compared to 24000 walkers and 19000 cyclists. We can debate the various sources of inaccuracies in the figures and unintended effects like activity supression, but it's clear that there are a lot of motorists getting hurt, so it's good that a pro-motoring organisation recognises this problem and that more enforcement is part of the solution.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
The utility cyclist wrote:Not investing in more police is financially ludicrous, the cost of not policing is far more costly than the damage done.
Ah, but who pays those costs? Not the police and too many people don't seem to connect their stagnant police tax bills with the ever-increasing insurance prices, or the hidden costs of disruption and damage caused by incompetent motoring.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe wrote:I would agree. In fact I'm surprised the numbers are so low e.g. only 65% believe they are unlikely to be pulled-over for offences - I'd have expected more to believe in their own immunity judging from driving standards, etc. Same with 54% thinking they'd escape prosecution for mobile phone use; or maybe the missing number is that 99+% believe they will never even get spotted using their mobile phones (my 99+% not being just from my own opinion).
These are only the ones who will *admit* that they believe they can get away with it. There will be another proportion who regularly engage in this behaviour, but will not say that they believe they can get away with it because they fear the survey will not be anonymous, they answer with what they think is the best, socially acceptable answer, or for some superstitious reason (like they don't want to jinx having gotten away with it for the last 15 years )
But those attitudes around policing and the likelihood of detection don't necessarily mean that they would indulge in the practice themselves.
No, it doesn't. An argument could even be made that the people who engage in that behviour are less likely to answer on a survey that they believe they can get away with it. For one thing, people who do not engage in that behaviour, but regularly observe it are more likely to take notice of it and be frustrated by it (believing that it is easy to get away with). For another, I expect that there is some proportion of people who regularly engage in that sort of behaviour who either have been caught, or believe it's just a matter of time, and have made a conscious decision that the convenience/advantage outweighs the risk of points and a fine.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Two good points made by MJR,if everyone conformed to the law and drove with due care and attention,brought about by whatever means necessary,then injuries to the person would plummet,and would result in less strain on NHS services,driiving would be less stressful,time off work reduced either temporary or permenant,vehicle damage reduced,insurance costs reduced,etc,etc. Win,win is the term that springs to mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Has anyone actually done that cost-benefit equation though? It's easy to point to, but what proportion of those injuries actually trouble the NHS for treatment, and at what cost, and similarly what's cost, with what degree of certainty to reduce them by x, y, or z percent?
I'm just a bit sceptical, perhaps because of the many and various business cases I've seen on my travels claiming all sorts of benefits that somehow either never seem to accrue, or more usually, never actually get measured.
)
