Remember this bloody idiot?
In my entry about this video a week ago, I concluded with the open-ended remark: The really scary thing is he's not the only one who drives like that…
And now I have some solid evidence in support of that statement: the findings of the 2006 AAMI Crash Index are being reported in the media (e.g. SMH, Herald Sun, ABC Online) and on the cycling blogs (e.g. spinopsys, pedaller, Sydney Body Art Ride - the last one with a complete transcript of the media release).
I'll not summarise the summary here, it's only two pages so you can go and read it yourself if you're interested (and if you use a public road, you should be). The message seems to be that dangerous behaviours on the roads are still seen as acceptable everyday behaviour by far too many people. On this topic, I direct the reader's attention to an excellent entry over on c.i.c.l.e., which says in part:
Most of those around us are not child molesters, murderers, or people otherwise inclined to violence, but a large percentage of the population are drivers who can often acknowledge—privately to themselves, or even publicly among other drivers—that they have themselves acted with less than total responsibility while at the wheel. But for far too many regular drivers there is a gap between minor delinquencies with fatal consequences and major delinquencies with equally fatal consequences.
There seems to be a real disconnect in the minds of drivers between dangerous behaviour (such as speeding, driving while fatigued or under the influence of alcohol, use of mobile phones at the wheel) and the horrific consequences of those actions. As highlighted in the AAMI media release, those consequences are often visited on innocent others:
"One in ten drivers (10%) think its OK to drink and drive after a few drinks, so long as they feel capable.
**This is the kind of arrogance that kills people, and shows some drivers have little value for their lives, or
the lives of other road users**," said [Geoff Hughes, AAMI Public Affairs Manager]
[emphasis added]
Saints on cycles?
Do cyclists and motorcyclists suffer this same disconnect?
On the whole, no. With the exception, perhaps, of speeding (even a bicycle can be ridden at reckless speed in some conditions), the consequences of these dangerous behaviours are largely restricted to the rider: ride with a few pints of ale under your belt and you'll probably fall down, SMS while cycling and you'll probably fall down, and so on…
Cyclists aren't sainted, just pragmatic. Any cyclist (or motorcyclist for that matter) who has fallen down at speed will carefully weigh the dire personal consequences of any potentially hazardous behaviour on the road. Pedaller's observations on human behaviour in cages is probably relevant here.
But is it all bad news?
The reports all appear to be pretty appalled about this with the exception of Tasmania's Examiner, which reports that
not everyone agrees with AAMI's conclusions, with Road Safety Task Force chairman Paul Hogan yesterday questioning AAMI's interpretation of the survey's results.
"Whilst I respect their survey, it's not consistent with our findings," Mr Hogan said.
"We've been pleased with the reduction in the amount of people caught on random breath testing that have exceeded .05 blood alcohol content," he said.
"It's not to say it's satisfactory, it's not, there are still people that go out and drink and drive, but it has improved."…
The RACT also issued a statement expressing surprise at AAMI's findings, saying they did not correlate with either the RACT's experience or statistics available from other Tasmanian authorities.
Update 24 August: I should have said that AAMI's [full report][] addresses this apparent discrepancy—in the fine print:
Except where stated, the survey explores respondents' experiences of crashes over their lifetime. AAMI's research may differ from government and police sources, which typically examine a 12-month period.
Also, smaller or unreported incidents may be captured in AAMI's research and not by others.
Let's not ignore that the papers love a hysterical headline about bad statistics, so we should recognise and applaud any improvement. (And could such bad news be good news for insurance companies when it comes time to hike insurance premiums again?) Nevertheless even in approximate figures, findings like 88% of drivers speeding "at least some of the time" and only 24% of drivers considered "Safe and patient" suggest there's still plenty of room for improvement.
I don't think it's a troublesome paradox to be simultaneous pleased with progress to date while remaining appalled at the status quo.
Bloody idiot
To return to the bloody idiot in the video, in Australia he'd have plenty of company:
"Almost one-third of Australian drivers admit they have fallen asleep at the wheel—a potentially fatal
situation that can be avoided by stopping to take a powernap, or an extended rest.
"However, one-quarter of drivers (26%) say that if they are tired while driving, they would be unlikely to
stop and take a powernap," said Mr Hughes.
That's assuming he wasn't also pissed, but if he was he'd be among a sizable 42% of drivers who admit to driving when over the legal drink-drive limit
.
Either way, he's a bloody idiot. And so are all the others.
The disconnect is in full view at the Gotcha Blog where cyclists have taken a hammering from our motoring friends. They have no idea about the consequences of their driving habits on other road users. And of course the AAMI study suggests that they have a real problem with each other.
I think we need to be careful in making comparisons between measures of "offenders caught" and public opinion in general.
I had the same concerns as pedaller about Mr Hogan's comment about the "amount of people caught on random breath testing". The AAMI index is a study of attitude and self-reported behaviour—Mr Hogan is talking about how many people the police have caught. These are two quite different things.
Comments
I'm a little concerned over the remarks made by the Tasmanian Road Safety Task Force chairman Paul Hogan regarding the reduction in numbers of people caught drink driving. If I wanted to show a reduction in drink driving I could any or all of the following:
Now I'm not suggesting that the Tasmanians have actually done any of this, I'm just trying to point out that a reduction in the numbers of people caught drink driving need not bear any relation to the numbers of people actually driving under the influence.
In much the same way AAMI's survey of some 2,000 people could have been manipulated, but the data from crashes is probably quite a representative picture of the situation.