Metal theft. The biters bit

[grimly4]

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must be, he's told us so many times.

[Cynic]

Why should that situation be anyone's problem apart from you, your friends and your family?

When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all the necessary care personally. There were however plenty of friends and family members who between them were able and willing to provide the additional necessary care without significant detriment to themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

[Cynic]

Either that or you have an overly fertile imagination.

I do in fact know and visit several people on such estates who do

*not* have loads of tattoos, and who mostly conform to the law in all respects AFAICT. They do indeed have neighbours who have all sorts of weird body decorations and who frequently and blatantly break the law.

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others

*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". So long as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no problem at all.

[Cynic]

Similarly, beating up an innocent person because you *think* he is a thief is still GBH.

[Cynic]

Its a very interesting area of psychology to do with cognition. The driver does indeed *see* the camera, but the brain has pre-assessed it as not being a risk factor, and so its presence is is filtered out before passing the current visual field to the decision-making portion of the brain. Whilst driving we are quite correctly concerned mainly with things that are moving or that might move.

The brain is capable of making only one decision at a time. "Multi-tasking" is an illusion - the human brain cannot do such a thing. When spotting a speed camera, there is a natural reaction to check your speedo and decide whether you need to slow down. If something else happens in that half-second or so that requires a decision, you will be unable to deal with it until you cease with the decision process you are currently working on.

Whilst you might be amazed at how difficult it is to know *for certain*. Unless you are a driver who *always* drives at least 5MPH below the speed limit.

I usually have a succession of problems that I successfully deal with while I am driving, yes.

[dennis]

Liar. I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I never excluded anyone.

[®i©ardo]

And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard themselves as better than their neighbours"? I think the "grassing" comment sums up a lot - keep your mouth shut or else we'll burgle you next!

[Cynic]

In the same way as you might get that impression from someone. By remaining aloof and refusing to socialise (or refusing to allow your kids to play with their kids). By making judgemental comments. By being critical of their behaviour. By being arrogant. Etc.

[®i©ardo]

Ah, being just like them!

[Bill Wright]

It might be ABH.

Bill

[Ste]

I repeat, he does not have to see and recognise the object. He can completely discount the object, because it is stationary and falls in an area of vision that is outside the usual area of relevance. There could well be a gunman at the side of the road taking aim at the driver, but the reality is that most drivers are not going to see him, because experience suggests that no such thing generally needs to be guarded against, and that limited resources of attention should be properly focussed elsewhere to managing scenarios that do more commonly occur.

What is true, is that the driver in that case, was not capable of driving as safely in the presence of speed cameras, as he would have without the presence of the speed camera. Since the sole purpose of the speed camera was (supposedly) to improve safety, it failed in that regard.

But logically, one of the solutions to this conundrum is to remove the speed cameras themselves, since that will achieve a change in the prevailing circumstances, in a way that reduces the mental demands of driving and improves safety.

That's really neither here nor there. The point is that even people moving very slowly, manage to make mistakes that will reasonably lead to fatality. And most people must in fact demonstrate their competence, before being allowed out on their own to walk - children are not simply left to wander the streets, and certainly not near busy roads, and adults who cannot walk the streets safely are locked up for their own protection.

I can see why you are somewhat disgruntled about road safety!

Because it might cause a statistical increase in danger without causing every single driver to crash on every occasion, and above all the particular scenario required a pedestrian to step out into the path of traffic (itself an relatively uncommon occurrence) right in front of the speed camera.

But then you cause even more of what I've described, in terms of reallocating mental resources away from other important tasks, to the sole task of identifying hard-to-see speed cameras - in which, generally, braking reactions will be even more last-minute and extreme, instead of planned somewhat in advance.

Or perhaps I'll just do what you want, and accelerate to 25mph in a

30mph zone, and then turn Radio 4 on and concentrate on that instead!

Whatever your lectures about unsafe driving, I (along with most other drivers) am satisfied that my driving is of a reasonably safe standard, even though I (and most others) exceed posted limits as a matter of routine, and that it is not necessary to drive any safer. I accept intellectually that my driving is not perfectly safe, but emotionally my standard of driving causes me no particular concern - if it did, I would change it so as to alleviate my concerns.

By menacing me with the criminal law, you do not make me more concerned with safety - you simply make me more concerned with avoiding the sanctions of the criminal law. And if, for example, you successfully force me to reduce my speed so as to avoid criminal law penalties, then the surfeit of driving safety that I would then be enjoying, would simply allow me to bankroll more dangerous styles of driving (in particular, those styles that require less skill and less concentration), because there would be no point me engaging in the various safety-improving behaviours that I do presently, that I do only to alleviate what would otherwise be an unacceptable level of danger given the speeds that I currently drive at.

I am not sure that I will be driving legally. If there is no red-light camera, then I fully intend to proceed in circumstances where, if there is a camera, I would not proceed - not necessarily because I am sure that I am about to run a red light, but because I know it is on the margin and I am not willing to risk being on the wrong side of the margin, whereas without the camera I would be willing to take that risk. So too, if there is no speed camera, then I will usually be driving faster than if there is a speed camera, at a speed that I have determined to be appropriate.

Quite. The fact is, I do speed and I do jump amber lights, so I do have that problem.

Not unless the cameras were completely undetectable, and even then, as I've said, I might well actually overtly comply with the law, but in a way that nevertheless subverts its underlying aim. For example, I might simply start slamming on at amber at every junction - causing the very accidents the camera was supposed to prevent, in which no doubt the driver behind will occasionally swerve to avoid rear-ending me, and straight into the bus stop full of children.

I would certainly be driving beyond the abilities that you are demanding.

I have no intention of doing so, unless I am forced, and if I am forced then I fully intend to offset my enforced cooperation with an increase in risky behaviours elsewhere, of the kind that you will not be able to detect as reliably as my speed or red-light jumping.

"Proper driving", according to the vast majority of drivers, does not include a strict adherence to the posted limit. Your commitment to the idea that such adherence is essential to proper driving, seems to be based on the idea that the posted limit is a better reflection of a reasonably safe speed than the majority of drivers' own judgments, but not all of us are so respectful to authority or blindly trusting of supposed experts.

I can only imagine you either put a lot more mental effort than I do into monitoring speed, or you drive appreciably slower than I do in general (so that, even with the inaccuracy, you are almost invariably driving under the limit), or (a remote but real possibility) you are simply not telling the truth.

Unfortunately, few of us are going to do that unless we are forced - and like I say, if we are forced to drive so slowly, we'll just react by driving otherwise more dangerously, so that we are returned to the situation in which the vast majority of drivers, are driving in a manner that they themselves consider to be reasonably safe (and no more safe than that).

On the contrary, I think a good driver should break the rules. I think this comes down to more fundamental differences in our general approach to authority. I do not respect any rules, unless I accept their underlying reason for being, and I often go out of my way to break those rules whose underlying reason I do not accept. I think perhaps you just take them on blind trust.

But how do you choose the minimum? If your judgment of the minimum exceeds the legal limit, do you say to yourself "I must be wrong", or do you say "the person who put up the sign must be wrong"?

[Ste]

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do anything.

[Ste]

the 'advanced' techniques of car driving are not just preferable but necessary, requiring not just a higher standard of driving in terms of my own vehicle, but additional guarding against, and compensation for, the incompetence of other road users). Additionally, I am also an experienced tanker driver of hazardous goods - and tanks have their own particular (but certainly not unmanageable) problems.

At various times I have probably driven more miles in a month than you drive in a year, on different types of roads all around the country. For good measure, I also have a copy of Roadcraft on my bookshelf - although it is a long time since I actually read it, because I understand and implement its principles as a matter of routine.

I feel quite confident to say, that I have forgotten more about the practice of driving, than you will ever know - and I was biding my time for the right opportunity to point this out to you. I do not have to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot - it is quite glaringly obvious to me that many people are incompetent drivers, every time I set out on the road.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Ste writes

snip

Might this be an appropriate time to invite *drivers* to post details of their driving history? Somebody with more knowledge than I could perhaps collate the results.

eg.

Driving test attempts.

Pass date.

Approx. annual mileage, lifetime

" " " , current

Driving style, aggressive

" " normal

" " defensive

insurance claims

points on licence, total

" " " , current

location, urban

" , rural

anything else?

regards

[dennis]

You can repeat it as often as you like, it doesn't make it true.

I almost killed a copper because of that. I saw him aiming a gun at me and I ducked. It turns out it was a test of speed guns. They never did adopt those, something to do with being a hazard.

You aren't very observant are you?

If you can judge your speed without referring to your speedo you lack experience. For example you don't need to look at your tacho to know when to change gears, you use other indicators. The same is true for speed. This is why you need to be aware that you may speed after leaving a motorway.

Its also easy not to, you just aren't very good at it and need more practice.

At the worst it is a minor "distraction".

You are now claiming most drivers are poor drivers, at least we agree on that.

No, I am stating that drivers are *required* not to speed. How they achieve that without being unsafe is up to them.

If that is the case you are driving at an unsafe speed. Why do you have a problem realising that it is not good driving to ignore information just so you can drive faster?

Many people don't discard either bit of information, they slow down so there is time to process it. It is called being a good driver.

What failed was the driver. He was guilty of dangerous driving whatever was said. If he couldn't handle the situation at the speed he was going he should have slowed down to a *safe* speed.

All that does it make people drive faster, they then have to disregard even more information and become even less safe. What should be done is to hide the cameras and get people that drive too fast off the road.

More evidence that you lack observational skills (or you live somewhere without kids).

Ah one of those unlikely events that you stated drivers don't lookout for. Maybe that was the cause and not the camera.

You can get done by hidden cameras now, does that make you concentrate on looking for them?

How is that what I want? You can drive as fast as is safe up to the speed limit. If you are only safe at 25 mph then I am quite happy for you to drive at 25 mph. I wouldn't be happy if it was because you were composing text messages that was making you erratic.

Why am I not surprised

Such self confidence, if only self confidence were matched by skill and understanding the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't have several people a day killed on our roads.

Incorrectly determined to be appropriate.

That is a problem that needs to be addressed. Maybe you should look for instruction.

You are not a safe driver whatever your self confidence may say. I suggest you seek instruction before you do something you regret. Try the IAM.

Are you claiming to be insane now?

The speed limits are not there just for safety. There are other valid reasons for them.

Where am I not telling the truth?

BTW I am usually overtaking most of the cars on the M6 as they don't have a calibrated speedo and are driving at what they think is 70 mph. I have also exceeded the speed limit on the M6, but only when there is a police car behind me.

Ah we agree there, you shouldn't assume the posted limit is safe.

The minimum can't exceed the maximum. Maybe that's your problem you don't understand maximums and minimums.

[dennis]

Now you are worrying me.

[dennis]

You could, but there are quite a few here that would claim anyone that says they have driven a million miles and never had points, convictions, claims, etc. is liar.

8<

Last eyesight test would be a good one.

[whisky-dave]

That sort of thing gets learnt, there was a kid oin teh bus yesterday, he was about waiste hieght so my estimation he was about 6,or 7 he was telling his mum , "if you don;t buy me a present I won;t behave tonight"

A future politition or banker I wonder ;-)

[Cynic]

Hmmm - it seems a very strange way of looking at things. But if that is the way you believe things should work, here's a scenario I would like you to consider:

You make a contract with a company for them to build you a conservatory. All the materials are duly delivered, but nobody shows up to actually build your conservatory. Nevertheless, you are charged for the job. When you protest, you are told that the person who was assigned to build your conservatory had to stay at home because his wife became ill. He obviously still needs money to live, so you must still pay for the job that he would have done had he not been obliged to care for his wife.

Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why should it be acceptable to any employer?

[Cynic]

Which "them" do you refer to?