"The Government Can't Stop People Driving Badly"

[Mick F]

We're happily married. 37 years so far.

I drove a van for a local firm after I left the RN, and although I was good and prompt with my deliveries, I did stray off the route to visit shops or take time out occasionally.

The company never checked the mileage or the fuel consumed, so I could have taken the van for far more miles than I should. Just think, if they'd had a secret GPS logger in the van, they would have seen me loafing on the job!

[SilverBadge]

I presume a lot would depend on what the black box recorded and where it got the info. It cannot be beyond the wit of society to include some sort of tracker. Obviously, the only things which would reduce the taking of motor vehicles would be even stronger physical security, but then you get into the area of people being robbed and homes burgled to steal the keys.

Many cars already have a black box which does much the same as an aircraft's - continually overrecords the last minute of vehicle parameters, until "something" happens, at which point it stops and the useful data is there for the manufacturer. Practical statistical dataloggers have existed for a decade or two - could show that you don't (or do) regularly brake heavily, spend large periods on full throttle, at 125mph etc. There's enough info in the car to get distances without using GPS etc. Privacy issues exist, particularly in the USA - usually the right to withold data and perjure oneself (rather than admit you were 15mph above the speed limit and still accelerating and only hit the brakes 0.2 seconds before impact) is regarded as sacrosanct. There was one case where a hire car had a GPS recorder installed (can't remember whether it was declared or hidden) and the hirers lied to avoid a contractual surcharge (that must be some sort of fraud) - when rumbled by the GPS they countersued for invasion of privacy etc. And depressingly I'm pretty sure they won.

[Vorpal]

'Black box' data recorder are used in accident investigation in numerous countries. It has become common practise in the US where something like 80% of cars have them (if I get a few minutes, I'll look up a reference to support that). The first case in the UK was in 2008 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... r-crash.do

The US required standardisation of data recorders some time ago. The EU has been slower to do so, partly because the US standards cannot be adopted for various engineering reasons, and partly because it takes years for this sort of thing to get through all of the committees to become legislation. The lack of standardisation makes it more difficult to use the data, or to get a conviction based on data recorder evidence (barristers can more easily argue that it is unreliable, requires specialist interpretation, etc.)

Also, they have limitations; some types of motions aren't recorded; most significantly, much information can be lost when a vehicle spins. However, such things as speed, point of braking, and other vehicle functions (airbags, engine speed, etc.) which are controlled or relayed electronically are reliable when correctly translated.

[thirdcrank]

... The lack of standardisation makes it more difficult to use the data, or to get a conviction based on data recorder evidence (barristers can more easily argue that it is unreliable, requires specialist interpretation, etc.) ...

That doesn't stop it being used as evidence if it exists although it does make it less attractive to the prosecution than the defence. There are rules about the disclosure of evidence which deal with this. In a criminal case, the prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defence evidence in its possession and in a case where the defence thought this info would help, you can be pretty sure that they would takes steps to have it preserved and analysed. As most prosecutions involve the driver of a vehicle, then this evidence is likely to be in the possession of the defence rather than the prosecution and you do see advice in 'Honest John' to have it analysed when somebody says they are being wrongly prosecuted for speeding etc. I'll surmise that in most cases they realise it won't do them any good, which is why it's not often used. Remember, as the defence only has to introduce a reasonable doubt, they don't have to prove the validity of the evidence to the same standard demanded of the prosecution and the defence is under no general obligation to disclose evidence to the prosecution.

I don't know anything about the disclosure rules in civil cases, except to say they do exist and apply to both sides. I think you can be pretty sure that if there was a multi zillion £££ compo payment hingeing on this, they'd have it out and analysed PDQ. In civil cases, the standard of proof is balance of probablity.

I think in the context we have been discussing this in the thread, it's looking towards the day when the info is routinely available to download and analyse and I would imagine that insurance companies are potentially even more interested in this technology as a way of identifying driver risk than apportioning blame after the event.

I had forgotten that this info was already there when I posted above. I was thinking of the vehicle tracker systems now routinely used by fleet operators.

[Mick F]

It wouldnt work in the boot would it?
You would have to leave it out of sight on the rear parcelshelf I think.

My 705 works in the car in my pocket.

Here's the route we took from home to Manchester. I recorded it for interest's sake, but I did fish it out of my pocket so that Mrs Mick F could navigate us to Daughter1's house via Altrincham.

[meic]

I am impressed that in managed so well in your pocket.
Obviously the altimeter would work OK without "seeing" any satellites if it is a barometric one.

I dont think that my Vista HCx is that good even if the H stands for high-sensitivity.

[CREPELLO]

I want to ask those here who think it's a priority to get dedicated facilities built what happens in our old urban infrastructure. There just isn't the space for these paths. Paradoxically, it seems that in the new towns mentioned above there actually is the space and yet cycle up-take is lower, it seems because road provision is just too convenient.

So what to do in our older towns? It's no use berating the CTC for a seemingly misguided policy of hierarchy of provision. Of course, where space is available, quality paths can be the appropriate provision (in that location), but in addition to other town-wide policies. The answer is (as stated previously) to make the movement of motor vehicles more restricted. I don't see another realistic approach to policy or design.

The one thing I can't reconcile about both on road cycle lane and pavement type paths is how to negotiate junctions safely. Whilst the UK still maintains the existing priorities at junctions, these places will continue to be death traps for cyclists. You simply cannot negotiate these safely via cycle facilities. However, a confident and/or trained on-road cyclist will negotiate a junction with considerably less risk, by adopting a more primary position and having fewer sight lines to cover (in a limited amount of time). Some here might think that's just an old CTC roadie attitude which denigrates and belittles the new cyclist, but it's simply a position born out of facts. I wish the cyclist had priority over the car at junctions, but as we don't, how do we reconcile this deficiency in facility design and policy?

[snibgo]

I wish the cyclist had priority over the car at junctions, but as we don't, how do we reconcile this deficiency in facility design and policy?

Easy: we change the design. As well as the appropriate signs: where a cyclepath crosses a road, the cycle path can be level but motorists have to go up then down. Likewise footpaths.

In city centres, two-way residential streets can be made one-way. This would free up space for (two-way) cyclists. The network of through routes for motorists along these one-way streets would, of course, be deliberately inconvenient to get to the shops or whatever.

Remove on-street parking.

These and other measures would reduce traffic volumes and speed, opening up streets for active transport.

Would a politician get elected on this manifesto? Perhaps not. Would a campaigner who suggested this be branded a hopeless case, and ignored? Possibly.

[Mick F]

I am impressed that in managed so well in your pocket.
Obviously the altimeter would work OK without "seeing" any satellites if it is a barometric one.

I dont think that my Vista HCx is that good even if the H stands for high-sensitivity.

I'm no expert.
(How many times have I said that?)

I do know that the Edge series have a 12 channel receiver, and that the 305 is better than the 205, and the 705 is better than the 605 - have I got those model numbers correct? The better ones are not just better because they have BP altimeter, the satellite receiver is more sensitive too. 705 is tops.

As I said, mine works in an aeroplane.

[Guy951]

Getting back on topic...

The Govt may not be capable of doing anything but now employers have a tool to keep tabs on their employees driving habits (but will they use it?)

Warning: links to MailOnline so the comments will be totally barking

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350331/Crystal-Ball-Mobile-app-lets-bosses-monitor-employees-company-car-use.html

[merseymouth]

Hi there, Dangerous assumption post, "All drivers trained & hold licences"? Get real! DVLA hasn't got a clue as to whether or not all powered road users have either training or licence. Even the police when told that a banned driver is still using a motor vehicle on the road do damn all about it! One moron I know of was teaching his wife to drive whilst subject to a ban!! Hey ho. TTFN MM

[KTM690]

The government can't stop people driving badly,but they can minimize it.At present, with a distinct lack of police presence and by all accounts that presence about to become even less,add to that the paltry sentences handed down, and it seems the government's objective is to maximize bad driving IMO.

The sentences for bad driving are relatively harsh compared to other sentences/fines dished out.

Look at the sentences for burglary. Plead drug addiction and you walk free.

Fines are harsh as well for driving offences.

Even penalties for parking are harsh - plus they can tow your car away.

[kwackers]

Even penalties for parking are harsh - plus they can tow your car away.

They are! It's cheaper to kill 4 cyclists in a car with 3 bald tyres than it is to get your towed car back!

[KTM690]

Even penalties for parking are harsh - plus they can tow your car away.

They are! It's cheaper to kill 4 cyclists in a car with 3 bald tyres than it is to get your towed car back!

Not so sure when you factor the cleaning costs of removing squashed cyclist from the paintwork

[Graham]

Goodbye KTM690. . . . . You just pushed it a bit too far this time.