It’s all about safety!

livvy wrote: spokey wrote: livvy wrote: I don't disagree more should be done about MRSA, I keep saying that. Ignoring the largely avoidable road deaths doesn't help that at all though. That is the typical response of a driver who gets prosecuted by the Police. "But look at them they were doing worse than me." Both MRSA & road deaths should be tackled and reduced as much as reasonably possible, as of course should any other causes of preventable unnecessary deaths. Livvy: if you want to avoid all avoidable road deaths, it's very easy: blanket speed limit of 20MPH. But you've said that doesn't work for you. There is a huge difference between 225 deaths in an inherently dangerous environment involving fast moving metal and millions of individual, differently skilled drivers on the one hand; and 20,000 avoidable deaths in a supposedly sterile healthcare environment under direct government control. If they put the same effort that they put into making driving a misery into healthcare they would save a load more people. It's not 225 deaths though.

225 directly attributable to speed. 1000 if you believe government statistics.

Funny how the ratio is reversed when they are responsible, isn't it?

Peter Fenwick wrote: In some cases you are right. However what you are suggesting is that it is possible never to make a mistake again. All we have to do is stop being lazy and selfish. With all due respect this is rubbish. No matrter how carefull and considerate we are we will always make some mistakes. To err is human, and to demonstarate this fact companies, when setting out health and safey policies and procedures, have to take into account that people inherently make mistakes and occaisionally break the rules. And in this case I'm not talking about breaking the rules, I'm talking about a good old honest to god mistake. If you have never made a mistake then you are in a position to critisise. If you have then I'm afraid your not.

But I don't believe you have to make mistakes around safety.
Nobody can perform the perfect drive, that is not without making some small although mainly insignificant (at least as far as safety is concerned) error. You can be trained to perform very very consistantly, with safety always beyond reproach. Trained so that if you adhere to your training you will never have a fault collision & by driving defensively you will be able to avoid the vast majority (save the truely exceptional flukes) that are down to someone elses mistakes.

The simple truth is that few are willing to go that far & make that investment required to address their driving in that manner. To continually search out improvement, continually looking critically at their performance & striving for unattainable perfection. They say they enjoy driving, but it is simple thrills they seek & that's not true, good on road driving in my book. It is possible to enjoy your driving & still remain within our laws, but people are guilty of only equating speed with driving enjoyment. The faster, the bigger the thrill.

If that is how you enjoy your driving then do it on a track, but that's not the same is it. People get bored with teh track & why ? Because there isn't enough danger to it that's why. Speed on the track is ultimately sanitised because of the safety measures. People get their thrill from the danger of interaction on our roads & that is not good, because invariably they are inadequately trained for it, they are not good at it (although they think they are) & they will endanger others lives with it.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: It's not only about addressing deaths from speed though. Look at those measures I pointed out from the upcoming road safety bill & how they realted to speed. Look at the current advertising slogans about tiredness killing. Look at the proposals in the Road Safety bill about provision for more rest areas on some of our motorways etc.

Yes, where it's not about speeding, it's about nannying.

livvy wrote: And with the skills our road users display daily, nannying is what they require.

The state, font of all good things, knows best, eh?

(Except when it comes to the hospitals, for which they are actually directly responsible.)

livvy wrote: spokey wrote: livvy wrote: And with the skills our road users display daily, nannying is what they require. The state, font of all good things, knows best, eh? (Except when it comes to the hospitals, for which they are actually directly responsible.) The people qualified to assess people's driving, are in a good position to pass judgement on that yes. Perhaps better than those who are not so qualified, but like to offer & their authoritive opinion anyway.

The people who are qualified to assess people's driving aren't doing a very good job, based on my little sojourn today.

Perhaps it's time they started listening to the unqualified people who pay their salary.

OK, here's a question..

If everyone on the road is expected to be able to drive to a safe standard that would make scameras (and livvy ) unnecessary - then why isn't this implemented in the national driving licence say upto some sort of IAM standard?
(I still say it should be compulsary for learners to go through a DL196 course - CBT to the younger ones here)

Rhys wrote: OK, here's a question.. If everyone on the road is expected to be able to drive to a safe standard that would make scameras (and livvy ) unnecessary - then why isn't this implemented in the national driving licence say upto some sort of IAM standard? (I still say it should be compulsary for learners to go through a DL196 course - CBT to the younger ones here)

Legacy issues for one.
The majority of drivers out there couldn't pass their DSA test if they were forced to sit it tomorrow. The effects of losing millions of drivers overnight wwould be catastophic to business & the economy.
The Road safety bill also has plans to improve training & testing arrangements within it.

It's not about not wanting people to have the freedom to drive if they wish. A large part of our population need to drive.
It's about wanting them to do it responsibly & within our laws. Within the rules they had to in order to pass their tests.
People get more confident after their tests, but sadly that doesn't always equate to their driving improving after their test.

I did see an article on the possiblity of power restrictions on motors for new drivers, similar to those for motorcycle passes.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: The majority of drivers out there couldn't pass their DSA test if they were forced to sit it tomorrow. The effects of losing millions of drivers overnight wwould be catastophic to business & the economy.

But think of the lives you would save, livvy!

(I can't believe this is the same person who berated us for not wanting to sign up immediately to that hugely pro-driver organisation, the IAM and do our advanced driving tests!)


Edited by spokey

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: The majority of drivers out there couldn't pass their DSA test if they were forced to sit it tomorrow. The effects of losing millions of drivers overnight wwould be catastophic to business & the economy. But think of the lives you would save, livvy! (I can't believe this is the same person who berated us for not wanting to sign up immediately to that hugely pro-driver organisation, the IAM and do our advanced driving tests!)

I've said all along that it is a question of balance. We will have some deaths on our roads that is inevitable. But not enforcing speed limits or other motoring offences is no way to go about minimising & reducing them.

It's not about getting drivers off the roads by banning them. It's about changing poor driver behaviour & a whole raft of proposals and improvements aimed towards safer motoring for all.


Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: But I'm not going to keep quiet when someone defends the status quo for the uncaring masses while moaning at enthusiast drivers for not making more effort to do things.

Who's defending the status quo. I'm for action. But it has to be realistic with achieveable goals towards minimising/reducing death & injury on our roads.

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: I don't have a problem with re-testing. I think the introduction of something on such a scale would be a massive undertaking & the feasability needs careful consideration. The money it would cost may be more productive in other areas. Yeah, like hospitals. How much is your life worth? Or your daughter or son or partner or mom or dad or whoever?

Yes perhaps.
Compulsory retesting would I think cost a hell of a lot to get off the ground & that money may be more productive in hospitals.

But there are cheaper cost effective measures that can still be aimed at reducing deaths on the roads. Encouraging people to further their skills with inexpensive driving organisations is one.