Ext User(Shane)
15-09-2005, 05:23 PM
"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:aojmv2-obq.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au...
> kevcat wrote:
<snip>
> The problem with the govt's approach, IMHO, is that their method of trying
> to get us to slow down is not teaching us to be safer drivers.
There are plenty of schools available out there to teach drivers better
roadcraft techniques. However, there are some people who will never take
other drivers into consideration, look ahead, look behind, leave the phone
down, yadda, yadda, yadda. The limits are for everyone. I'm happy enough to
have the less switched on drivers or those who are easily distracted, drive
at *stupid arbitary limits* instead of selecting their own speeds which
would in many cases be above the posted one. (They're not really
stupid)...............
It's teaching the
> majority that to be a safe driver you just have to drive slower. We should
> be teaching people to drive to the conditions and be more observant and
> aware that shit will happen and be prepared to avoid it. Toby's example is
> actually pretty good - even though he was driving really really slow, a
> kid was able to appear from nowhere and nearly get hit and Toby only
> avoided him because he (I assume) expects that sort of shit to happen.
Not everybody is Toby though. (thank goodness).
I'm sure the majority aren't like that.
> Just look at what happens when most people get into those sort of
> situations, or even something as simple as a sudden bit of braking on the
> freeway - people jump on the brakes, and even if they lock up, they stay
> on them because they just don't know how to do anything but.
It would take an extraordinary amount of training to reduce the number of
people reacting like that in real emergencies or what they perceive as being
emergencies. I know for a fact that trained drivers having just completed
advanced driver training still make stupid uncharacteristic mistakes when
the heat is on. To guarantee a sustained high level of the standards of
roadcraft you're alluding to takes *constant* training. Most of the glitter
that goes with the initial shock/horror of high speed brake test experiments
and the student's inability to manoeuvre through witches hats etc doesn't
hold water for very long. The same people still answer phones, ignore the
mirrors, don't look far enough ahead, travel too close, ignore advisory
signs etc. Trouble is, now they're doing it thinking they really know what
they're doing?
>
> Have fatalaties in residential areas fallen? Were kids getting pulverised
> by people speeding in the back streets before so much emphasis was placed
> on evil speeding? Lowering speed limits in back streets is probably only
> reducing the road toll by a few percent.
Yeah, and.....................
Most people who crash seem to just fall off the
> road, or collect an oncoming vehicle when passing unsafely.
In actual fact, those scenarios account for very few crashes. Inattention
would cover most of the offences in the COPS reporting screen drop down
list. Unfortunately we call them other things.
What does that
> suggest to you about the vale of simply reducing speed limits and
> enforcing predominantly nothing but the associated law?
I don't accept your assessment of crashes in the first place so I can't
agree with your contention either.
>
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
> 2001 manual 2.2l Holden Astra SRi - a real pleasure to drive;
> Michelin Preceda - $250 each but last a lot longer than $200 tyres;
> Alpine Type S speakers and amp, JVC MP3 CD playing head-unit.
>
> So much for the 4 line sig:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>
news:aojmv2-obq.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au...
> kevcat wrote:
<snip>
> The problem with the govt's approach, IMHO, is that their method of trying
> to get us to slow down is not teaching us to be safer drivers.
There are plenty of schools available out there to teach drivers better
roadcraft techniques. However, there are some people who will never take
other drivers into consideration, look ahead, look behind, leave the phone
down, yadda, yadda, yadda. The limits are for everyone. I'm happy enough to
have the less switched on drivers or those who are easily distracted, drive
at *stupid arbitary limits* instead of selecting their own speeds which
would in many cases be above the posted one. (They're not really
stupid)...............
It's teaching the
> majority that to be a safe driver you just have to drive slower. We should
> be teaching people to drive to the conditions and be more observant and
> aware that shit will happen and be prepared to avoid it. Toby's example is
> actually pretty good - even though he was driving really really slow, a
> kid was able to appear from nowhere and nearly get hit and Toby only
> avoided him because he (I assume) expects that sort of shit to happen.
Not everybody is Toby though. (thank goodness).
I'm sure the majority aren't like that.
> Just look at what happens when most people get into those sort of
> situations, or even something as simple as a sudden bit of braking on the
> freeway - people jump on the brakes, and even if they lock up, they stay
> on them because they just don't know how to do anything but.
It would take an extraordinary amount of training to reduce the number of
people reacting like that in real emergencies or what they perceive as being
emergencies. I know for a fact that trained drivers having just completed
advanced driver training still make stupid uncharacteristic mistakes when
the heat is on. To guarantee a sustained high level of the standards of
roadcraft you're alluding to takes *constant* training. Most of the glitter
that goes with the initial shock/horror of high speed brake test experiments
and the student's inability to manoeuvre through witches hats etc doesn't
hold water for very long. The same people still answer phones, ignore the
mirrors, don't look far enough ahead, travel too close, ignore advisory
signs etc. Trouble is, now they're doing it thinking they really know what
they're doing?
>
> Have fatalaties in residential areas fallen? Were kids getting pulverised
> by people speeding in the back streets before so much emphasis was placed
> on evil speeding? Lowering speed limits in back streets is probably only
> reducing the road toll by a few percent.
Yeah, and.....................
Most people who crash seem to just fall off the
> road, or collect an oncoming vehicle when passing unsafely.
In actual fact, those scenarios account for very few crashes. Inattention
would cover most of the offences in the COPS reporting screen drop down
list. Unfortunately we call them other things.
What does that
> suggest to you about the vale of simply reducing speed limits and
> enforcing predominantly nothing but the associated law?
I don't accept your assessment of crashes in the first place so I can't
agree with your contention either.
>
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
> 2001 manual 2.2l Holden Astra SRi - a real pleasure to drive;
> Michelin Preceda - $250 each but last a lot longer than $200 tyres;
> Alpine Type S speakers and amp, JVC MP3 CD playing head-unit.
>
> So much for the 4 line sig:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>