Brake vs. Advanced Driving

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Is Brake the complete antithesis of Advanced Driving? (or do we confuse "advanced" with "fast" too much?)

Discuss ...

[Strangely Brown]

The first and last items of the BRAKE "pledge" should tell you all that you need to know about that.

Slow
Drivers – I'll stay under limits, and slow down to 20mph around schools, homes and shops to protect others. I'll slow right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoid overtaking.
Everyone – I'll speak out for slowing down and help drivers understand that the slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.

Sustainable
Everyone – I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all. I'll get about by walking, cycling or public transport as much as I can, for road safety, the environment and my health.

That, IMO, is BRAKE in a nutshell.

In the same way that "advanced" driving is not about driving "fast", it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that "safe" driving is not about driving "slow[ly]". The word that is always missing from PC rhetoric is "appropriate".

[jont-]

Is it better to rant about BRAKE on web forums while they're busy engaging with politicians and directing road safety policy/campaigns? Or would you be better off trying to change the organisation itself and show why it's goals are misguided?

/for starters I'd like to see it split as I find it offensive that a political lobby group is benefiting from charitable status.

[StressedDave]

Or just cut the funding that they get from government in the first place. They'd soon not be as invasive a presence. But then they were set up by a journalist, I'd imagine that it's these links that drive their presence.

[Horse]

I receive the Brake weekly newsletter, it actually contains some very useful updates on recent research.

And, reading those quoted aims:

avoid overtaking

One of the big 'gotchas' for motorcyclists. When it goes wrong (especially at high speed rather than filtering) it usually ends badly.

slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.

It might be boring, it might go against the 'hobby' aspects for many of us, but if you're putting forward suggestions to LCD, non-enthusiast, appliance operator, drivers, that's difficult to argue against. Even for good drivers, with the concept of selecting an appropriate speed, it's rare that 'too slow' is a safety problem. One of the great motoring myths is that 'you need a powerful vehicle to accelerate out of trouble'. Instead, it's usually a sign that you were somewhere that perhaps you shouldn't have been in the first place!

I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all.

Well, if you don't drive, that still gives you the opportunity to cycle or walk, both of which never feature in the casualty stats . . . Risk transfer is actually a serious problem. There were suggestions that the effect of all the railway maintenance work (fixing broken rails) after Hatfield was an increase in road casualties as more people were driving.

However, if you look at the opportunities for home working, rather than travelling to the office, then that has benefits far beyond just eliminating (in my case) almost two hours a day driving. That can be personal, in terms of tiredness, and environmental.

Along similar lines, we have a shock horror outrage in West Berkshire today, with news that the council (following the lead of others) are only funding travel to school to the nearest school - even when those children live in the catchment area for a different school.

[akirk]

as above - I think that it is the word appropriate that is missing - we seem to live in a culture now where people prefer to present polemic views, not balanced ones - especially where there is virtue in some of what they are saying - sadly, there is often little balance and the good gets tied into a load of other bits due to a lack of understanding the bigger picture (much like the recent discussion on 20mph zones) - it is frustrating that the two are seen as one - I have no issue with driving slower / 20mph zones / walking or cycling instead - all are great things to advocate, but not out of context, you can advocate all of those at the appropriate time without removing driving faster (when appropriate) / keeping 30mph+ zones where appropriate / driving where appropriate

it is the lack of balance that makes such movements dangerous - but in our world of PR and marketing spin, one simple idea repeated many times is the formula adopted - lack of intelligence and discernment seems to go hand in hand!

Alasdair

[sussex2]

I have absolutely no problem or objection to driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances; in fact around schools this may well be below the 20mph asked for by BRAKE.
I've always regarded it as 'more educated' driving rather than 'advanced'.

[fengpo]

Firstly many thanks Alasdair for setting the forum up, I think the mantra of being flexible when safe to do so in nsl areas. Then sticking to said speed in populated areas in a fair statement.

[Strangely Brown]

Firstly many thanks Alasdair for setting the forum up, I think the mantra of being flexible when safe to do so in nsl areas. Then sticking to said speed in populated areas in a fair statement.

"Sticking to said speed in populated areas"? Why would you not wish to continue to be flexible? Flexibility applies to lower speeds where required too. i.e. The throttle pedal works both ways.

[sussex2]

The trouble is that when you bang on about something for a period of time people stop listening.
I believe this is a trap BRAKE are wandering into as their message does not seem to change. I see little in what they say that really moves things on for the most vulnerable on the roads; which I suppose makes me more radical than them.
There is no way I would want to go back to the appalling casualty figures, and sheer arrogance of many, that we witnessed 30 years ago or so. I do however think that credit should be given for the progress that has been made and that we should continue to built on that.
The progress cannot have been achieved without sizeable shifts in attitude by a vast number of people and that, in my opinion, is the best building block we have.