From: PHATRS on
On 23/06/10 22:06, the fonz wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:32 pm, st3ph3nm<s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> people ignore speed limits because they mistakenly believe it's safe.
>>> humans are notoriously poor at risk assessment.
>>
>> Not if they're trained correctly.
>
> training isn't a solution for everything. some people don't benefit
> from training as much as others, but worst of all, some people
> deliberately ignore their training and choose to take risks. there is
> no better example of that than hoons who drive at 100 km/h down urban
> street and roads. they don't need training - they already know what
> they're doing is wrong - they can only benefit from punishment.


Punishment doesn't work. Jail will only keep them off the road for a
while. And no govt is ever going to legislate jail time for speeding.

The problem is they shouldn't have the license in the first place,
because they will never escape the attitude of "it won't happen to me".

Ben
From: st3ph3nm on
On Jun 23, 10:06 pm, the fonz <arthur.fonzzare...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:32 pm, st3ph3nm <s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > people ignore speed limits because they mistakenly believe it's safe.
> > > humans are notoriously poor at risk assessment.
>
> > Not if they're trained correctly.
>
> training isn't a solution for everything.

Actually, it really is. Properly planned training addresses skill
deficiency and
attitudinal problems.

> some people don't benefit
> from training as much as others, but worst of all, some people
> deliberately ignore their training and choose to take risks.

How can you ignore training that you didn't get?
I've gone over this issue a billion times, but I'll ask the question
again:
Why is it that better training is seen to be the answer for risk
reduction in every
dangerous occupation in this world *except* driving a motor vehicle?
Would you get in an aircraft which had a pilot trained and licenced in
the same way as our young car drivers are?

> there is
> no better example of that than hoons who drive at 100 km/h down urban
> street and roads. they don't need training - they already know what
> they're doing is wrong - they can only benefit from punishment.

How can they know if they haven't been taught?
If you haven't taught someone correct emergency stop/avoid at 50kph -
and how
difficult they can be - then why would they figure it's dangerous to
drive fast. They've done it plenty of times and got away with it!
True story - talking to a guy (not a driving enthusiast) a few years
back I commented about lack of traction on wet roads and he hadn't
twigged (despite 6 or 7 years driving experience) that wet roads were
more slippery than dry!

>
> > > it's just untrue. there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite. it
> > > defies logic that driving faster is safer and belief that it is the
> > > case can only be reasonably be put down to cognitive dissonance.
>
> > Then why are German autobahns safer to drive on than our freeways?
> > They're built to the same specifications (a design speed of 130kph).
>
> i'm unsure why you believe german autobahns are safer than our
> freeways.

Because they have very low fatality rates (per km travelled)

> one reason may be that their drivers stay to the right
> (left) when not overtaking. i would hazard a guess that self
> preservation plays a part in that - no one wants a porsche to become
> permanently embedded in their back seat, but i also agree that is a
> behavioural area that could clearly be improved in australia.

I think it's the single most important safety issue on our freeways
currently.
Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1LM8TtSLZ0

Easily prevented by proper lane discipline. I believe it's illegal to
pass
on the inside on the German autobahns. If the slowest vehicles are on
the left,
then overtaking on the right (here in Australia) is easy and safe.
The third (or fourth) lanes are then available to overtake those
middle lanes safely. This means you don't get fast cars converging on
the middle lane, and speed differentials between lanes are reduced. I
bet no-one explained that to you during driver training, did they?

>
> > > a more reasonable question is: to what degree does speeding reduce
> > > safety? i think there is a case that making highways safer can justify
> > > higher speed limits. but not in urban areas - the idea that speeding
> > > is safe where there are pedestrians, cyclists and turning vehicles is
> > > nonsensical.
>
> > Where has anyone suggested increasing speed limits in those sorts of
> > places? What is needed is an engineered approach to speed limits.
>
<snip>

> i think it is theoretically possible to increase limits on some
> freeways, but i'm dead against speeding on urban roads and believe
> that many current road speed limits should be reduced further (with
> clearer signage).

Have a look at this site:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html

Which has an ok introduction to 85th percentile speeds and why they
should
be used to set speed limits.
>
<snip>

> well that's the current situation. by 'driving to the conditions',
> some people mean exceeding current limits in favourable conditions.

Because in some cases, the roads they're driving on were *designed* to
be
travelled on using speeds higher than the posted limit.

> that isn't practical as inevitably drivers will disagree with police
> on their interpretation of whether the conditions really were
> favourable. you need transparency and that is only practically
> achievable with a hard limit.

Which, if set according to engineering principles, rather than
an arbitrary number, would make sense. Currently multi lane freeways
with wire rope barriers are posted at the same speed as single lane
country
roads with no crossover protection. No wonder anyone with half a
brain
considers speed limits arbitrary.
>
> > > due the proliferation of bad drivers however, we are a
> > > long way from that ideal world and we need speed limits.
>
> > If we have a "proliferation" of bad drivers, then there's clearly
> > something wrong with our testing and licencing. Why not target the
> > cause?
>
> i disagree the major cause is our testing and licensing.

If we’re allowing poor drivers on the road, then there’s no way to
prevent it.
Other than having more stringent standards for training, licencing and
testing.

> drivers
> behave like angels when they get their license - i know i did, you'll
> fail if you don't. then when you're on your Ps the training kicks in
> and you prove to yourself that you can keep up the good work. then
> after a while you notice that everyone is overtaking you and it dawns
> on you - i can break a few rules here and there, like everybloodyone
> else and who's going to check up on me? and on it goes, with some
> people taking it to the extreme and convincing themselves that the law
> doesn't apply to them at all.

Bollocks. As soon as I had my licence, I was driving like a bloody
idiot simply because nobody taught me how potentially dangerous my
behaviour was. So, like all young idiots, I drove within what I
thought were my limits, managed not to kill myself through sheer
fluke, and learnt lessons along the way.
>
> that's not a testing and licensing problem, that's an attitude
> problem. it's solved with enforcement. unpopular but necessary.

Attitudes can also be taught.

Cheers,
Steve
From: Feral on
st3ph3nm wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:06 pm, the fonz<arthur.fonzzare...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> training isn't a solution for everything.
>
> Actually, it really is. Properly planned training addresses skill
> deficiency and
> attitudinal problems.
>
<snip>

>> there is
>> no better example of that than hoons who drive at 100 km/h down urban
>> street and roads. they don't need training - they already know what
>> they're doing is wrong - they can only benefit from punishment.
>
> How can they know if they haven't been taught?
> If you haven't taught someone correct emergency stop/avoid at 50kph -
> and how
> difficult they can be - then why would they figure it's dangerous to
> drive fast. They've done it plenty of times and got away with it!
> True story - talking to a guy (not a driving enthusiast) a few years
> back I commented about lack of traction on wet roads and he hadn't
> twigged (despite 6 or 7 years driving experience) that wet roads were
> more slippery than dry!
>
<snip>

>> i disagree the major cause is our testing and licensing.
>
> If we�re allowing poor drivers on the road, then there�s no way to
> prevent it.
> Other than having more stringent standards for training, licencing and
> testing.
>
>> drivers
>> behave like angels when they get their license - i know i did, you'll
>> fail if you don't. then when you're on your Ps the training kicks in
>> and you prove to yourself that you can keep up the good work. then
>> after a while you notice that everyone is overtaking you and it dawns
>> on you - i can break a few rules here and there, like everybloodyone
>> else and who's going to check up on me? and on it goes, with some
>> people taking it to the extreme and convincing themselves that the law
>> doesn't apply to them at all.
>
> Bollocks. As soon as I had my licence, I was driving like a bloody
> idiot simply because nobody taught me how potentially dangerous my
> behaviour was. So, like all young idiots, I drove within what I
> thought were my limits, managed not to kill myself through sheer
> fluke, and learnt lessons along the way.
>>
>> that's not a testing and licensing problem, that's an attitude
>> problem. it's solved with enforcement. unpopular but necessary.
>
> Attitudes can also be taught.

Wouldn't you just love to give him a young, drug taking,
alcohol drinking bloke with attitude to teach.

Blow him away wouldn't it!


--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-P -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^
From: D Walford on
On 24/06/2010 8:31 AM, PHATRS wrote:
> On 23/06/10 22:06, the fonz wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 1:32 pm, st3ph3nm<s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> people ignore speed limits because they mistakenly believe it's safe.
>>>> humans are notoriously poor at risk assessment.
>>>
>>> Not if they're trained correctly.
>>
>> training isn't a solution for everything. some people don't benefit
>> from training as much as others, but worst of all, some people
>> deliberately ignore their training and choose to take risks. there is
>> no better example of that than hoons who drive at 100 km/h down urban
>> street and roads. they don't need training - they already know what
>> they're doing is wrong - they can only benefit from punishment.
>
>
> Punishment doesn't work. Jail will only keep them off the road for a
> while. And no govt is ever going to legislate jail time for speeding.
>
> The problem is they shouldn't have the license in the first place,
> because they will never escape the attitude of "it won't happen to me".

The threat of goal for traffic offences worked on the one of the
sparkies I work with.
He was in court yesterday and only avoided a gaol term because he
elected to do a drink driving course before he was made to by the court.
His main offence was driving a car without an alcohol interlock fitted,
he did have one fitted to his car but removed it when he went OS to work
for 6mths but he didn't bother to get it refitted when he came back
home, he also had a series of speeding offences when he was a lot
younger but he seems to have grow out of his stupidity.


Daryl
From: D Walford on
On 24/06/2010 5:56 PM, Feral wrote:

> You don't appear IMHO to have a grip on the modern day prevalence of
> testosterone, booze, drugs, sheilas, mates, temper, ego, etc etc etc
>

What's "modern" about any of those things?
If anything those things are less of a problem these days than they were
when we were both a lot younger.
It wasn't all that long ago (40yrs) that a big percentage of the
population thought it was perfectly ok to drink and drive but with lots
of training, education and enforcement that issue has been greatly reduced.


Daryl