Psychology of road safety

[rastuscat]

For those who have too much time on their hands.



Interesting thoughts on road safety. And the arguments as to why driver education isn't the golden egg it's made out to be.

Pete

[Berries]

I like the last bit. I do a presentation to year 12 and 13 students to show how their brain develops and why they are at risk, particularly if they are driving with passengers. Combine this with a few slides of crash scene photos to grab their attention. Seems to be well received.

[BMWST?]

i dont agree totally on some of their deductions. Racing and rally drivers have more accidents. That is almost certinly due to the fact that those indiviuals have a totally different risk perspective than normal people. You might find for example that people who bungy jump have more accidents than "normal"

[rastuscat]

I like the last bit. I do a presentation to year 12 and 13 students to show how their brain develops and why they are at risk, particularly if they are driving with passengers. Combine this with a few slides of crash scene photos to grab their attention. Seems to be well received.

Delivering knowledge misses the mark. Unless it relates to changing attitude. Our road use is a product of our attitude.

[Berries]

Delivering knowledge misses the mark. Unless it relates to changing attitude. Our road use is a product of our attitude.

I would suggest that delivering knowledge to a new and young driver is absolutely critical to making them a safer driver.

[R650R]

No mention is really made about the quality of training. Also it starts of with a belief that good infrastructure is the biggest thing.
Sounds lot like the global propoganda agenda road to zero type thing that basically humans can’t be trusted to travel independently anywhere.
I agree that targeted enforcement makes a huge difference.
The real issue with awareness and safety messaging is the people in charge of spending that money often deliver the message in too fancy a way and not in a way that connects with the target audience. The only time they prob got close in nz was the ghost chips ad.

What really needs to happen is a glass corridor be built through the ICU ward at every hospital. At the end on that hallway will be the office where you get to collect your licence.

Ive been lucky during my career to have received training from some really great people and I can assure you it mattered in the outcome at various close calls. What really matters is taking ownership of the responsibility we have as a driver to ourselves and others. That’s what’s missing for many people they stop thinking once they passed the test.

As for the old vs young thing there’s a lot of obvious factors ignored there, eg the older new drivers will have gained experience just by being passengers and observing.

[jellywrestler]

i've just done a roadie up round the nakei and back to the hutt valley and a lot of people are atrocious with following distances. Why dont we see adverts on this, and indeed things like explaining to people why their indicators are twice as fast, defensive driving tips etc?
The government seems to think speed and alcohol are the only things that ever hurt anyone on the roads?
Right now following too close is worse than it used to be as there's a lot of surprise pot holes there too.....

[pritch]

It's difficult to disagree with that because the various points are based on studies. Still, it's hard to believe that training only has a negative impact on driver/rider safety. A new driver has only a minimal understanding of what's involved in driving and has basically zero knowledge of vehicle control or road craft. Most do nothing to improve this situation. Statistics reportedly show that a driver who has been involved in a specific type of accident is even more likely than others to have a similar accident in future. They consider themselves a good driver so they do nothing to correct their behaviour. I have actually witnessed that.

I'd be interested to know what Blackbird makes of this.

[pete376403]

Could almost say that the study looks like it was written to confirm NZTAs main approach (confirmation bias) to road safety - that the only thing that really works is enforcement, and that any other approaches are not worthwhile

[F5 Dave]

I live on the same hills as Jelly. I actually stopped my car (can't ride currently) on the way down the hill as dick wouldn't stop pounding my arse.
Then carried on and he kept following as close. FFS.

I regularly get caught up going into the twisty narrow part of the hill. I make a large break on them in the wide hairpin because I take a mc wide line.

But then they catch up. I can't drive any faster as it's narrow with multiple driveways appearing and the risk of Mamals on bicycles exacting their health program.

Like Jelly I could wallpaper my ensuite with racing certificates. But these cunts are clearly much sharper than me.

[rastuscat]

I posted it as I was challenged by the findings, and interested in what others thought.

I believe in Ride Forever. It delivers knowledge, but also works on changing attitudes and beliefs. I've done a song and dance about following distance so many times its almost subconscious. But while most people get it, some still don't.

I agree with the study though that attitude and beliefs inform the deployment of knowledge, and this behaviour.

My following distance speech starts by asking my group whats the legally required following distance at 50 kmh. Everyone says the 2 second rule. But thats not the law. The law says 4 metres per 10kmh of speed. So at 50 kmh you should be 4 x 5 or 20 metres back. I then run a tape measure out to 20 metres, and people all declare that nobody does that distance. My experience says that the standard following distance at 50 kmh is 9 - 11 metres, or half of what's legally required.

Ironically, at 50.kmh you are traveling at 13.8 metres per second. So if you are 2 seconds back, you are 27.6 metres back.

So everyone tells me the 2 second rule is the law, then tells me nobody does it except them. Yeah right.

And why does it exist? Sure, it allows emergency stopping distance. But the key is visibility. The blind spot behind a vehicle has claimed many motorcycle victims, who have fallen victim to drivers up ahead who have turned into the space behind an opposing car and found it occupied by a motorcycle.

Or pulled out of a side road, enticed out by an indicator, to find a motorcycle they haven't seen overtaking the left turning car they don't have to give way to.

All of which can be solved by the 2 second rule. The one riders apply. By giving themselves that space the rusk of becoming someone's victim reduces hugely.

But instead, riders tend to tuck up the arse of larger vehicles to gain the advantage of being able to overtake when the chance opens. Even when there is no chance of overtaking.

Everyone can tell you the 2 second rule. Most don't understand it, or apply it.

Rant concludes.

[R650R]

The m/s breakdown really nails it.

We are taught counting a thousand and one and so on to measure time. As an experiment I just did the headcount with blind tap on phone stopwatch.
2 secs in head varies from 0.98 to 1.48.

We should stop calling it stopping distance and call it thinking distance to avoid risk compensation of oh I have good brakes and reactions. And bluntly tell the population that the evidence shows we are not as quick thinking as we like to believe.

Perhaps during the practical test we should have a large concrete block on rails winched in at 50km to a hard stop. You follow at “2 secs” and if you don’t hit the block you pass.

[Blackbird]

Having gone through police roadcraft training, up to becoming an Examiner with IAM, Pritch wondered what my thoughts are with regard to the study. Broadly, I'm inclined to agree but with some qualifiers based on personal experience. It wasn't until my early 60's that I thought that upskilling was a good idea to safely prolong my riding. I'd seen endless campaigns (as they call it in the article) but they meant nothing to me. It wasn't until I'd had a couple of really close calls which were entirely my fault, plus a decent speeding ticket that I realised that there was plenty to learn. I'd been riding like a twat on occasions but had never internally acknowledged it. I'm not sure whether it applies to most riders and drivers, but it needed something highly personal for me to pull finger and get motivated.

With respect to the actual training and for older/experienced riders in general, the roadcraft training had a massive benefit in risk reduction for me. There are too many elements to mention here but to lump a few together, my situational awareness and risk mitigation strategies improved out of sight and although I've retired from riding, it's still in my muscle memory for driving. I take issue with the conclusions about limited value as there have been a number of European studies showing the reduction in serious harm from upskilling/reskilling. However, I do think that to get the most out of it, you've got to be motivated to want to improve. That's certainly my experience with IAM. The only way of doing that is to get a taste of it rather than simply "campaigning" or watching videos etc. I'd agree that these are not generally effective.

A couple of paragraphs aren't going to do justice but maybe you get my drift and it's simply my personal experience. Stopping riding at 75 was predominantly age/health related rather than a loss of interest but I've got other interests to keep occupied and mentally active.

Cheers,

Geoff

[roogazza]

Hope everyone is back to work or school tomoro ?
Retirement is a bastard !
I plan to be out early for a ride, without holiday makers clogging my fav roads.

[F5 Dave]

Hate to clang your bell, but us parents of school going sproglets know that Easter Tuesday is a thing.