Cycling UK Forum

Society won't solve a problem until it recognises that the problem exists, and is worth solving.

It could insist that banned drivers don't get their license back until they have taken another test.

It could insist that all motor vehicles are fitted with black boxes.

It could patrol streets with undercover police officers on bikes with videos. (A brilliant idea I've just thought of.)

It could make urban streets safe and convenient for pedestrians and cyclists.

It could insist that all drivers (including drivers of lorries and buses) must be able to see where they are going.

It could ban killer drivers for life.

Why doesn't it? Because the costs of the solution (in terms of money, votes or whatever) exceeds the benefits (fewer people killed or injured).

To be fair, society is moving in the right direction. Since 1965, traffic has trebled but accidents have halved (299,000 down to 164,000), reducing fatalities (7,952 to 2,222) and injuries (390,000 to 220,000). (DfT reports casualty stats table 2.)

Other indicators (eg obesity) are moving in the opposite directon.

It seems we're talking about two differing types of driver education here. I'm not going to enter debate on whether drivers should be trained to a higher level of driving. My point is the broader aim of increased awareness of the consequences of the misuse of motor vehicles in the wider society, although principally through bad driving.

So what are we saying - that there's no point in speed awareness campaigns? What about bike awareness campaigns? No point to them, because there's always going top be some idiots who show will-full disregard? Education to improve the quality of the environment for all road users should be a no brainer. We shouldn't even be arguing that point.

CREPELLO wrote:It seems we're talking about two differing types of driver education here. I'm not going to enter debate on whether drivers should be trained to a higher level of driving. My point is the broader aim of increased awareness of the consequences of the misuse of motor vehicles in the wider society, although principally through bad driving.

So what are we saying - that there's no point in speed awareness campaigns? What about bike awareness campaigns? No point to them, because there's always going top be some idiots who show will-full disregard? Education to improve the quality of the environment for all road users should be a no brainer. We shouldn't even be arguing that point.

I only know of one type of education. The aim of training drivers or trying to persuade them to take a bit more care (I mean your alternatives above) is ultimately the same, to modify their behaviour in the right direction. You say "Increased awareness of the consequences of misuse" , but any driver who is unaware of these consequences must be near catatonic. The phrase itself reminds be of a beaurocrat from the DoTransport, or of propaganda from RoSPA.

And yes, I am saying there is no point in these charades of campaigns. They serve only to disguise the lack of will to do anything. I don't know what "we" are saying, but I don't believe "education" of drivers does any good in terms of road safety.

Mike Sales wrote:

CREPELLO wrote:It seems we're talking about two differing types of driver education here. I'm not going to enter debate on whether drivers should be trained to a higher level of driving. My point is the broader aim of increased awareness of the consequences of the misuse of motor vehicles in the wider society, although principally through bad driving.

So what are we saying - that there's no point in speed awareness campaigns? What about bike awareness campaigns? No point to them, because there's always going top be some idiots who show will-full disregard? Education to improve the quality of the environment for all road users should be a no brainer. We shouldn't even be arguing that point.

I only know of one type of education. The aim of training drivers or trying to persuade them to take a bit more care (I mean your alternatives above) is ultimately the same, to modify their behaviour in the right direction. You say "Increased awareness of the consequences of misuse" , but any driver who is unaware of these consequences must be near catatonic. The phrase itself reminds be of a beaurocrat from the DoTransport, or of propaganda from RoSPA.

And yes, I am saying there is no point in these charades of campaigns. They serve only to disguise the lack of will to do anything. I don't know what "we" are saying, but I don't believe "education" of drivers does any good in terms of road safety.

I thought you were arguing against improving driver skills (above) in case they lead to further abuse? So if you think driver awareness campaigns are a waste of time, what are you in favour of?

All road users have been on the receiving end of poor decisions by other road users. Most human beeings will analyse what went wrong and try to invent a strategy for improving the outcome the next time that situation occurs.

What I am saying is that most drivers have a will to improve and the most efficient way is to be shown how. In other words, which strategy to employ in given situations. Most of us did not come up with the formula for the area of a triangle by ourselves, we were shown how and why it works.

CREPELLO wrote:I thought you were arguing against improving driver skills (above) in case they lead to further abuse? So if you think driver awareness campaigns are a waste of time, what are you in favour of?

I mentioned improved skills leading to more risk taking because this shows that skills are irrelevant. I think that it is not level of skill which leads to accidents, but level of willingness to take the necessary care, in this case the care for others' lives. Professional racing drivers have accidents on the road, but many technically much less skillful drivers go a lifetime without accident.
One does not have to have a solution in order to comment on a problem. I'm afraid I'm too old to have a solution to these problems. Its important to make sure not to waste energy on ideas which don't work.
O.K. Since you asked, I'm of the spike on the steering wheel persuasion. I suggest we merely change the construction rules for motor vehicles such that the occupants will emerge from a collision in as bad shape as any pedestrian or cyclist they hit. I do not believe that this would increase the death rate of motorists, but it would save the lives of the vulnerable.

Okay. Right.

I read something today, in the papers, about the new EU MOT. Someone (I think a labour loon) wants to bring it in, and replace the UK MOT. The EU version lowers the standard required to pass the test, is only carried out every 2 years, and only for vehicles over 4 years old.

The outcry seems not to be about having unsafe vehicles on the road. oh no. the outcry is about the economic impact. the 40,000 MOT testers losing jobs (really?), and the regular repair work income they generate.

so, I think about 'making people drive better', and I just think, what's the economic gain/loss of that ? UK PLC is driven primarily on economic costs. from the average person who buy books on Amazon because it's cheaper, to the government awarding ship building contracts to the south to 'create jobs'. everything seems to be about the least worst economic cost, rather than what is good. we all know what is good, but we don't all put that at the forefront when making purchasing decisions.

you remove bad drivers from the UK roads, and petrol sales reduce, vehicle tax income reduces, car sales reduce, road mending reduces, etc, etc. what is the governments' real incentive here ?

I suppose you could counter argue that NHS costs would reduce, but I think it's clear that the costs are already paid off by the revenue of 'more drivers, more income.'

is there any economic incentive for stopping bad drivers ?

DougieB wrote:

is there any economic incentive for stopping bad drivers ?

Perhaps there isn't a clear economic incentive to banish bad drivers, but difficult as it may be to appreciate, there is a social figure/cost to all of this; it's just that it is more difficult to put a figure on. Perhaps it shouldn't be defined in £'s anyway. I think it is largely an issue of 'quality of life' and individual well being. The costs of becoming stressed and fearful have an amplified effect through the whole community. Car travel with all it's attendant behaviours has made a large contribution to the stressful modern life style.

Bad driving has a palpable effect on those witness to it. Government should recognise the way stressed behaviour has a bad outcome on society as a whole and seek to redress the balance. And to that end yes, bad driving, amongst other anti-social behaviours does have a detrimental effect on economic output. Stressed workers are definitely not productive workers.

I totally agree with you, quality of life is way more important that £'s. but this is the UK we're talking about. £'s seem to be first priority for the powers that decide these things.

DougieB wrote:is there any economic incentive for stopping bad drivers ?

In the long term: fewer bad drivers = more cyclists = healthier people, less CO2 etc.

But in the short term, bad drivers provide employment for police, health staff and morticians.

CREPELLO wrote:Okay. Right.

Whatever.

snibgo wrote:

DougieB wrote:is there any economic incentive for stopping bad drivers ?

In the long term: fewer bad drivers = more cyclists = healthier people, less CO2 etc.

But in the short term, bad drivers provide employment for police, health staff and morticians.

I think, unfortunately, modern government/media is all about targets and headlines. your 'long term' are most important to us, but least tangible. your 'short term' are great headlines (employment, tax, revenue, yah yah) and there's a cost/benefit that can be tallied up.

I really do think, sadly, that the UK powers are utterly convinced/run-by the principles of the market economy. I can't see any way of 'common sense' prevailing. There's just too much risk of job losses to contemplate CO2, or healthy people. Healthy people mean less jobs in the NHS after all, which is bad for the UK. it really is a weird state of affairs.

I am leaving in a long trip soon, so hopefully my cynicism will be rebalanced....

Black boxes would revolutionise road safety - I genuinely can't fathom why there is not more lobbying for these to be phased in.

Pedestrian wrote:Black boxes would revolutionise road safety - I genuinely can't fathom why there is not more lobbying for these to be phased in.

They'll happen eventually, but it'll be the insurance companies that get us there, rather than government (which fears the unpopularity of mandating them).
Start by making them a condition of insurance for higher risk drivers (this is already starting to happen), then introduce discounts for drivers who accept them voluntarily (ditto). As acceptance grows, it becomes more of a case of loading insurance for drivers who refuse to have them, and eventually it'll reach a point where no black box = no insurance. Then you just add a transponder to the black box so that police can detect anyone driving without one (and by implication, without insurance), and any vehicle involved in an incident can automatically record the transponder id of any other vehicle in close proximity at the time.
Job's a goodun.