BentMikey and a Subaru Driver

[Tinuts]

That's not actually true, at least according to the study I'm aware of: it would be fair to say "as profound an effect" but the actual characteristics are quite different. Strayer, Drews & Crouch 2006, put drivers in a simulator and found

Semantics, semantics and more semantics. It's enough to make one anti-semantic.

 

[blazed]

That's not actually true, at least according to the study I'm aware of: it would be fair to say "as profound an effect" but the actual characteristics are quite different. Strayer, Drews & Crouch 2006, put drivers in a simulator and found

The difference is there are many stages of drink driving. Which is why you cant say using the phone is as dangerous as drink driving. Simply because you can have 2 pints and be a "drunk driver" and that may be as dangerous as using the phone, but a different person may have had 8 pints and is now a lot more of a danger than someone on the phone. Which is why those studies are useless, and why the penalties are nowhere near the same.

 

[Dan B]

Yes I accept that most of the danger in terms of injury to pedestrians and cyclists comes from motorised vehicles, but as I said before it is not unfair, it is physics.

Sorry, but that's just a category error. 90% of the time the physics only comes into play as a result of bad decisions or poor judgment on the part of humans: yes, your one tonne car will crush 70kg me, but only as a result of your action (or lack of action) as its operator. Physics is irrelevant until the mistake has been made already

If it was commonplace for poorly-trained pilots to drop their planes out of the sky and kill people standing underneath them, I wager that your response would not be "oh well, that's physics for you, the victim was just unlucky" but "how can we improve the standard of pilot training so that this doesn't happen (or doesn't happen as much)". So why do so many people see it differently when it's a car not a plane? Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally, or maybe that they (incorrectly) subconsciously believe the roads are for cars and everyone else is there on sufferance. I'm assuming neither of these fits you, so - got any other explanations?

 

[Tinuts]

The difference is there are many stages of drink driving. Which is why you cant say using the phone is as dangerous as drink driving. Simply because you can have 2 pints and be a "drunk driver" and that may be as dangerous as using the phone, but a different person may have had 8 pints and is now a lot more of a danger than someone on the phone. Which is why those studies are useless, and why the penalties are nowhere near the same.

Useless, why?

Whether you have a blood alcohol level of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or 200 mg you're still classed as a drunk driver and will be prosecuted as such. I don't believe anybody is under the illusion that alcohol effects all people the same way but a legal minimum has been set. Let's not forget that there is quite a robust and strongly supported argument for lowering that legal minimum in the UK to put it in line with the more common 50mg/100ml endorsed by most EU states.

If using a mobile phone means you will drive as if you were experiencing the effects of at least an 80mg/100ml of blood level then I can see no persuasive argument for not implementing the same penalties.

I don't think it is any secret that the Police would like far stronger penalties to be in force.

As for that bloke using 8 mobile phones whilst driving.................

 

[thomas]

Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally

I think a lot of people would be against having to do something every so often (be that each year or every 10 years) which means they have to pass something to continue driving, just in case they couldn't.

 

[f1_fan]

Sorry, but that's just a category error. 90% of the time the physics only comes into play as a result of bad decisions or poor judgment on the part of humans: yes, your one tonne car will crush 70kg me, but only as a result of your action (or lack of action) as its operator. Physics is irrelevant until the mistake has been made already

Or your action as a cyclist as believe it or not (and I know you probably can't) you could make a mistake or error that causes the accident yet you will be the one that gets hurt because of the physics of the situation!!!!!

If it was commonplace for poorly-trained pilots to drop their planes out of the sky and kill people standing underneath them, I wager that your response would not be "oh well, that's physics for you, the victim was just unlucky" but "how can we improve the standard of pilot training so that this doesn't happen (or doesn't happen as much)". So why do so many people see it differently when it's a car not a plane? Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally, or maybe that they (incorrectly) subconsciously believe the roads are for cars and everyone else is there on sufferance. I'm assuming neither of these fits you, so - got any other explanations?

But in the case of light aircraft pilot error IS to blame for most plane crashes and the fact that people aren't killed more often is simply because they rarely crash into areas densely crowded with people

The problem with your argument is you seem (and I may be wrong here so hands up if so) to assume that pedestrians and cyclists never make any errors and the drivers of motorised vehicles are always to blame hence why you have the persecution complex thing going on.

My attitude is that everyone will make mistakes from time to time and with better training education I hope we can lessen the numbers of these mistakes, but they will still happen. When they do the laws of physics dictate that no matter whose fault it is in a collision between a cyclist and car it is the cyclist who will come off worse. That is the fact of it. The unfairness is just your opinion and I don't share it and never will hence given that my views are clearly entrenched (and probably evil and nasty in your eyes) and yours are just as entrenched in the opposite direction I see little point continuing this debate.

 

[Dan B]

If I'd had 8 pints I doubt I'd even be able to find the ignition switch, so no real risk to anyone on the road unless possibly to their dry cleaning bill.

But for the benefit of anyone who wants to actually read the studies instead of hypothesising about what they might possibly have said,
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ is a good place to start

 

[f1_fan]

I think a lot of people would be against having to do something every so often (be that each year or every 10 years) which means they have to pass something to continue driving, just in case they couldn't.

I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like this was introduced.

I think I am an OK driver, not the best, but certainly not the worst - to have to have an assessment every 10 years would confirm whether I am in fact OK or I am actually deluded.

 

[Tinuts]

I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like this was introduced.

I think I am an OK driver, not the best, but certainly not the worst - to have to have an assessment every 10 years would confirm whether I am in fact OK or I am actually deluded.

I'm surprised the g'ment hasn't proposed it. Think of the revenue raising opportunities!

Oh, no........I can hear it now:

"Bloody cyclists. Don't pay Road Tax, don't pay Insurance, don't have to take the Ten Year Re-test........."

OK, Scrub that.

 

[Dan B]

The problem with your argument is you seem (and I may be wrong here so hands up if so) to assume that pedestrians and cyclists never make any errors and the drivers of motorised vehicles are always to blame

You are, as you suspect, wrong.

My argument is quite simply that when drivers are driving in a shared space which is also open to pedestrians, cyclists, sheep, horses and random other legal road users, then because physics says they're the most intrinsically dangerous people, the moral obligation is on them to take extra care correspondingly. Not on the horses and pedestrians to get out of their way.

If someone walks through a shopping mall carrying a bale of barbed wire, they would take more care, yes? Because by carrying it they are increasing the danger to anyone who bumps into them. If you collided with someone carrying that bale who was not taking appropriate extra care, you would reasonably be upset. If the result was they you sustained an injury and they got away without, you might say that was unfair, wouldn't you? So, substitute the mall for a road and the bale for a car, how does that change the picture? It doesn't, unless deep down you believe that the roads are not really shared spaces

 

[Dan B]

I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like [ten year retest] was introduced.

I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.

Maybe if they could combine it with something fun it'd sweeten the pill. You know, "you must now take the ten year retest and then we've arranged a skid pan driving lesson for you" or something

 

[f1_fan]

You are, as you suspect, wrong.

My argument is quite simply that when drivers are driving in a shared space which is also open to pedestrians, cyclists, sheep, horses and random other legal road users, then because physics says they're the most intrinsically dangerous people, the moral obligation is on them to take extra care correspondingly. Not on the horses and pedestrians to get out of their way.

If someone walks through a shopping mall carrying a bale of barbed wire, they would take more care, yes? Because by carrying it they are increasing the danger to anyone who bumps into them. If you collided with someone carrying that bale who was not taking appropriate extra care, you would reasonably be upset. If the result was they you sustained an injury and they got away without, you might say that was unfair, wouldn't you? So, substitute the mall for a road and the bale for a car, how does that change the picture? It doesn't, unless deep down you believe that the roads are not really shared spaces

While what you say has some validity I would see the person with barbed wire and take extra care around them because I know I would come off worse if I were to collide with them whether it is my fault or theirs.

And that is the part of the argument you seem unable to comprehend. Yes car drivers should take more care, but that does not alleviate other road users from being responsible for their own saftey and that of others to a certain extent too. No it doesn't. We all have responsibilities on the road, all of us.

Also you keep banging on about me deep down believing the roads are not really shared spaces. For your information I believe no such thing, the roads are there for all of us to use repsonsibly. Your repeated digging away at that issue just makes you look even more like you have a persecution complex quite frankly.

 

[Tinuts]

I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.

Talking of revenue raising opportunities..............

I never did apply for one of those photo-card jobbies so I still have the old one. I would now seem to be £20 the richer because of it!

 

[f1_fan]

I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.

Maybe if they could combine it with something fun it'd sweeten the pill. You know, "you must now take the ten year retest and then we've arranged a skid pan driving lesson for you" or something

When I say delighted I mean I would welcome the legally enforced periodic reasessement of people's driving my own included.

And being serious for a minute a skidpan lesson would teach a lot of drivers a thing or two about handling their vehicle in less than ideal road conditions. I am lucky enough to do trackdays and skidpan courses every now and then because I enjoy them, but they also teach me a lot about driving my car in different conditions.

 

[dellzeqq]

As you're an experienced driver, what do you suggest I change to increase my safety w.r.t. D4N?

I have a plan. And it's a good one. Since, BM, you'll not be spending the night with me any time soon, I wondered if you were going to the next CM.........?