h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A680636

Part information, part polemic.

It should be noted that the Highway Code is not only directed at motorists, although the majority is.
And a good supplement to it is 'Driving - The Department of Transport Manual'. Oh yes, and grab a copy of 'Roadcraft - The Police Drivers' Manual' as well. Driving well is important!

Nice one, Just Zis Guy - speaking as somebody who was a driving instructor for some years I like what I read here. It was always my contention that if you want to know what the Highway Code says, you should ask a learner driver - they're the only ones who feel any need to read it.

I spotted a couple of typos,

<< many people do not know that there is a new Highway Code because their *mmory* of the last one they saw is so dim that the *readically* ... >> should be 'memory ' and 'radically'

I think it might be a bit easier on the eye if you put line breaks between the paragraphs in the first part to break up the text - but feel free to ignore me if you like it that way!

A couple of points.

The Highway Code is not Law. This is a commonly held misconception.

The Law is the Road Traffic Act and various amendments, etc. The Highway Code is a Code of Practice.

Compliance with a Code of Practice is a good way to demonstrate compliance with the law but not the only way. It is however much, much more difficult to demonstrate compliance with the law without following a code of practice.

The Highway Code applies to all road users; car, lorry, van, motorcycle, bicycle AND pedestrian. The number of cyclists that owe me their life for my being aware of their presence at night, despite their not having lights and not looking at junctions, beggars belief.

Lastly, I obviously aware of zebra, pelican and puffin crossings as these have been around a lot longer than a decade, but just out of interest, what are these mysterious four additional types of crossing?

Madent

Brilliant entry! Helping to prevent road accidents is part of my job.

It would be helpful to explain what a Gatso is in a footnote.

Other types of crossing include toucan (pedestrian and cyclist) and cycle crossings. Brain dead after work, so I can't think of more.

Oh - another typo - under the 'Stupidity' heading - 'thier' should be 'their'.

"most if not all drivers think they are safe..."
Drivers think driving is safe enough for them to do it. And so it is. Most drivers drive for many thousands of miles over a period of years between accidents. The majority of accidents are trivial in terms of personal injury. Drivers realise that safety depends not only on them but also on other road users.

"...and expert"
I believe most drivers do not think they are expert but sufficiently competent and careful most of the time. And so they are.

"Arrogance..." Of course some drivers are arrogant. But others are timid and hesitant. Get the two together and whose fault is it if they collide?

"... a misconception whose inaccuracy is amply demonstrated by the fact that motorists have, since the invention of the car, killed more people than all the wars fought everywhere in the world during the same period ..."
I wonder. But even if true (and how do you know?) maybe it's because there are far more motorists in the world than combatants in wars? Actually, very few motorists kill. A motor vehicle is occasionally used as a murder weapon, but not very often. Of course, people do die in accidents involving motor vehicles - is that what you meant to say?

Belshazzar, nearly 5,000 people die each year on British roads. Many more are seriously injured. Perhaps Zarquon's Singing Fish will be able to supply us with more accurate figures. Whatever the figures, they are too high, and many thousands of miles of trouble free motoring are neither consolation or defence if you are then involved in a fatal road accident.

In the early 1990s, the Government commissioned the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to invesigate why the accident rate for drivers under the age of 21 is around seven times higher than that for older drivers. One of the central conclusions was that young drivers are over-confident and have an inflated view of their own ability, leading them to drive too quickly and take unnecessary risks.

Very few motorists set out to kill, but sadly many of them ending up doing so. I dislike the word 'accident' - it suggests that there is nobody at fault. The vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error - which could be reduced if drivers - and other road-users - take on board Just zis Guy's message.

An interesting entry.

Perhaps this entry should be entitled "Staying up to date with the Highway Code". It is very much a polemic, as you say, or rant as I would say on the subject of people not reading the highway code. It doesn't tell us too much about the code itself.

I think the paragraph which first introduces the idea of killing someone and not being punished should have a (see below) added to it. Otherwise the reader will wonder and will think you are not going to say anything else on this subject.

There are one or two typos: mmory and readically.

I agree with Gnomon here, and I also trenchantly agree with the author in terms of his disgust at the way the code is ignored by many people.

I think however the article is more a statement of opinion than a factual essay on the code. I would like to see more content, more specific points about the code itself - "did you know?" sort of things.

Alternatively, if you like the article as is, it's a good entry and well worth a link in the Post.

.
Captain Kebab, you raise some interesting points.

"Whatever the figures, they are too high..."
This is how politicians talk. It sounds good, and I don't disagree, but the problem with saying that is that it begs the question "Okay, so what figures would be acceptable?" To which the only decent answer is "Zero". So where does that leave us?

"...many thousands of miles of trouble free motoring are neither consolation or defence if you are then involved in a fatal road accident."
No consolation, I agree totally. In fact it would probably come as a terrible shock if you've been driving safely for years. It certainly would if it happened to me. But I think a long unblemished driving record should be taken into account, if not in defence then at least in mitigation, for example where a proportion of blame is assigned to both parties. Previous convictions or a clean record do mean something.

"the accident rate for drivers under the age of 21 is around seven times higher than that for older drivers"
So I understand, and this seems to be borne out by the insurance companies, who load their premiums accordingly. But this is the very age group that has read the Code the most recently, and been tested most recently on their knowledge of it and, come to think of it, is more likely to understand ten metres than fifteen feet! So I don't think studying the latest version of the Code is going to do very much to reduce the accident rate among the very people who are so disproportionately responsible. Encouraging older people to read the latest version of the Code is admirable, but I imagine its effect on the accident statistics will be marginal.

"I dislike the word 'accident' - it suggests that there is nobody at fault."
I wouldn't worry about that. The courts do often judge people to be at fault when such events, incidents, happenings, impacts or collisions occur. But what word would you prefer?

Another point about the Entry is that it claims that "I just didn't see them" would be a valid mitigating statement. This may have been based on a particular case, I wouldn't know, but in general I would have thought that in circumstances where a reasonably diligent driver ought to have seen them, such an excuse wouldn't impress judge or jury. Obviously it all depends on the circumstances of each case, and it's ridiculous to generalise in this way. Also, this has nothing to do with the Highway Code, which is what the Entry is supposed to be about.

Hi JZG,

I must start by saying that I think your text contains some good points and fair points, well made. On the other hand, I think other aspects of it are questionable.

I agree with others that the current title is inappropriate given the nature of the text. A change of title can often make a big difference to this kind of piece, I feel.

It seems to me that you are rather free with criticism of the authorities and their treatment of road accidents (I consider 'accidents' a totally suitable word, since it is rarely a pre-meditated, intentional act. In cases where such intent was suspected, surely the motorists involved in deliberately causing criminal damage and possibly personal harm would be investigated on a criminal basis?).

>>In law, of course, ignorance is no defence. Unless you kill someone because you "just didn't see them" - in which case however ignorant you are you may safely expect to retain your driving license and suffer only a trifling fine and a few points.<<

Do you think judges are somehow deliberately aiming to let dangerous drivers do their worst? Worse still, over and over again? I don't. I would not be surprised to hear that bad decisions *are* made. I would be surprised if anyone could demonstrate that such cases were the norm.

I think you make fair points about many people's lack of interest in keeping up with changes in the code, but I found two points in your list confusing:

In the Arrogance bit:

>>a misconception whose inaccuracy is amply demonstrated by the fact that motorists have, since the invention of the car, killed more people than all the wars fought everywhere in the world during the same period.>>

I for one find this very, very hard to believe. If you can demonstrate that the figures are even close, I will eat humble pie and thank you for a stunning revelation.

However:

I think you quoted one figure in the thread, and even if you multiplied that figure by 100 on the basis that cars have been on the roads roughly 100 years, it would still not be as many as died on the Somme in the WWI, if I remember rightly.

Although cars have been around about 100 years, there weren't many around at all before the 20s, then mass production kicked in and the numbers steadily rose and post-WWII, of course, we have seen production sky-rocket worldwide. Equally, pre-1950s cars didn't run as fast or break as suddenly as modern ones. Roads were not what they are today. There are a host of variables to consider.

I suggest (on a purely informal, according to Spiff without figures to back me up, kindofa way ), that if the figure you quoted was a modern one, it is probably only valid back to the early 80's at best.

A lot of people have been killed in wars (not just in Europe but all over the world) and I think your point is not just spurious, but inappropriate. Sorry to be so negative.

'Stupidity' section in your list rather odd. What distinction are you making here between stupidity and ignorance? Stupidity is an insulting word and perhaps you *do* want to insult certain road users in this piece, but it seemed odd to use it here, especially given that what you describe in that section sounds like ignorance to me.

After what I have said above, it seems unnecessary to comment specifically on the final para in detail. I don't share your belief that so little is being done to punish the genuinely guilty and protect competent road-users.

Having said all that, your piece has made me think about the problem of ignorance of the HC in a new way and I will be following the link ( I was ignorant of its presence on the web and there isn't a WH Smiths in Strasbourg! ) to their site to find out what I have been missing.

So despite the fact that I have been rather negative about some things in the text, please don't think I don't see any value in this entry.

Seeya
Spiff

.
Captain Kebab, you raise some interesting points.

"Whatever the figures, they are too high..."
This is how politicians talk. It sounds good, and I don't disagree, but the problem with saying that is that it begs the question "Okay, so what figures would be acceptable?" To which the only decent answer is "Zero". So where does that leave us?

"...many thousands of miles of trouble free motoring are neither consolation or defence if you are then involved in a fatal road accident."
No consolation, I agree totally. In fact it would probably come as a terrible shock if you've been driving safely for years. It certainly would if it happened to me. But I think a long unblemished driving record should be taken into account, if not in defence then at least in mitigation, for example where a proportion of blame is assigned to both parties. Previous convictions or a clean record do mean something.

"the accident rate for drivers under the age of 21 is around seven times higher than that for older drivers"
So I understand, and this seems to be borne out by the insurance companies, who load their premiums accordingly. But this is the very age group that has read the Code the most recently, and been tested most recently on their knowledge of it and, come to think of it, is more likely to understand ten metres than fifteen feet! So I don't think studying the latest version of the Code is going to do very much to reduce the accident rate among the very people who are so disproportionately responsible. Encouraging older people to read the latest version of the Code is admirable, but I imagine its effect on the accident statistics will be marginal.

"I dislike the word 'accident' - it suggests that there is nobody at fault."
I wouldn't worry about that. The courts do often judge people to be at fault when such events, incidents, happenings, impacts or collisions occur. But what word would you prefer?

Another point about the Entry is that it claims that "I just didn't see them" would be a valid mitigating statement. This may have been based on a particular case, I wouldn't know, but in general I would have thought that in circumstances where a reasonably diligent driver ought to have seen them, such an excuse wouldn't impress judge or jury. Obviously it all depends on the circumstances of each case, and it's ridiculous to generalise in this way. Also, this has nothing to do with the Highway Code, which is what the Entry is supposed to be about.

.
Sorry, I didn't intend to post twice. This keeps happening to me, although I definitely, but definitely, only click once. Anyone know why this sort of thing happens?

A semi-relevant point or four;

I think the stated figure for people killed was just in the UK. Multiply it again by several hundred to get the world-wide figure.

The UK has some of the safest roads in the world, a point rarely mentioned in the news. Our motorways are (dodgy statistic warning) the second-safest in Europe, after the German autobahns - and that's despite British motorways having the second-highest speed limit (after, wait for it, German autobahns).

I got flashed by a camera a few months back because I thought red+orange meant 'go if it's safe'. Couldn't understand why the camera went off until I checked my Highway Code.

Gif

I thought the general speed limit on motorways in Europe was 120 km/h, which is 74 mph, making them faster than UK motorways, where the speed limit is 70 mph.

The highway code is not law, but failure to observe it is evidence of driving without due care, and several sections of the highway code do tell you what the law is (using the codeword "MUST" in bold type).

The figures for numbers killed vs. wars come to me from Transport 2000 and Friends of the Earth, but I don't know where they got them - they have, however, been used in parliament, where they would have been checked by civil servants and rebuffed if inaccurate.

> people do die in accidents involving motor vehicles - is that what you meant to say?

No, I meant to say exactly what I did: motorists have killed more people than all wars in the period since the car was invented. The motor car is the most dangerous piece of machinery most people will ever use in their lfetime.

Gnomon - told you it was a dodgy statistic (i.e. I heard it on the telly years ago). I am correct that UK roads are among the safest in Europe, though, I think?

One other point I meant to make - The one thing that unites everyone on this planet is that we all believe ourselves to be above-average drivers.

Gif

.
That's because we all believe ourselves to be above-average in lots of ways. For example, we all think we are above-average lovers.

Not sure I go along with that - I think some people are probably insecure about their lovemaking abilities (although they may claim otherwise).

I have generally found that woman drivers tend not to claim to be above average, although they usually claim to be careful. Many men, however, regard any implication that their driving is less than superb as impugning their manhood. Apart from the mathematical ignorance necessary for most people to be above average, the vast majority of drivers pass their tests and then have no further assessment of their driving, ever. On the basis of this, and the fact that they haven't hit much recently, and when they did it was clearly somebody else's fault, many then conclude that they are good drivers.

This is a big part of the problem. I was a driving instructor for several years. I'll give just one example (I could write a book) of what I mean. I had a student who had driven unlicensed and illegally and now wanted a license for work. He explained that he didn't need to be taught to drive, he'd never had an accident and knew what he was doing, he just needed to be 'got through the test'. He may not have had an accident, but he must have seen a lot. He drove at breakneck speed, without any consideration, and caused other road-users to take avoiding action. He didn't have accidents because other people got out of his way. He eventually behaved in my car because I made it clear that he had to, and he passed his test. I don't think he learned anything since. I hope he never killed anybody.