One of my favourite TV programmes has got to be "BBC Click". They manage to give well presented, lively, interesting reports on newer technology.
Now I say "newer" because they stuff they show isn't always new, just that there's been a new piece of kit that does "X" that they highlight. In this weeks show, it was about so called "Black box" recorders for cars, that record and measure the car/driver ability.
This isn't new, I saw something like this, what ?, 3 years ago. It comes under the term "Telematics".
It would appear that now, the insurance companies are starting to take more of an interest (not that they ignored it before). They seem to be on the verge of using systems like this, in conjunction with a "financial carrot" of lower insurance costs. Hell, the BBC click programme even got an interview with someone from DHL because they've installed "forward facing cameras" in 600 of their trucks.
Now I'm not against anything that genuinely makes driving safer, but so many of the "good idea club ideas" are just there, so management of businesses that involve/use some sort of road transport, can point the finger.
These devices will continue to be pointless until they can maintain a 360 degree view of the road round a vehicle, so that in the event of an accident, investigators can get a full understanding of the road conditions and what's going on at any given time.
Having mentioned the DHL action above, I'll continue to use goods vehicles as an example.....
So, as any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross weight have now been fitted with speed limiters (56 mph I believe, but have also read that the EU directive is for limiting to 10% below the normal vehicles maximum legal road speed).
Now imagine the scenario, with the vehicle trundling down the motorway, with the pedal down, only to come across some crusty old bastard, who thinking that they're saving the planet, sits in the nearside lane at 50mph (I'm not pointing the finger at the older driver per se, but it really does seem to be people of that group who drive like this). Ok, fine I hear you say, just overtake them. Which is Ok, except the longer the vehicle, the harder it is to judge the safe distance to pull back into the appropriate lane, especially when the only way to see where said "crusty old bastard" is positioned, is the use of the near side (a.k.a. "blind side") mirrors.
Well, if you're lucky and the crusty concerned, is a well mannered person, who tries to be considerate, will actually let the truck back in. Whereas what you get in reality, is a miserable old scroat, who thinks "I'm not gonna sit behind that bloody great truck" and speeds up, too "undertake" the truck. Leaving nothing else for the truck driver to do but pull back into the nearside, and eventually catch up with the crusty, who by now, has dropped their speed back down to 50mph again.
What you end up with, is an accident waiting to happen.
So rather than thinking up some clever technological method of pointing the finger, how about making refresher training mandatory ?
The transport world has recently moved over to having to provide 35 hours of "extra training" in a 5 year period (known as a "drivers CPC" a.k.a. drivers certificate of professional competency"). Now at the moment, the drivers CPC scheme is a bit of a joke. Each minimum 7 hour training period, isn't a pass or fail, it doesn't even have any specific syllabus. Just the requirement that it's attended. So it could be "how to make a good cup of tea and bacon sandwich" (yes, I know, that's extrapolating to the "nth degree"). And that "course" is attended 5 times in 5 years.
Fucking brilliant move there Europe, eh!
So why not make it a little more specific ? and focus it on safer, more defensive driving techniques ? Something like one session every 2 or 3 years ? Oh, and make it mandatory for holders of all driving licences. As to whether it should be pass or fail, is probably a different question, as it should be enough to appease any industry groups who'd complain that if it was pass or fail, that all of a sudden, their costs of retaining drivers would go through the roof.....
Lets face it, the vast majority of road traffic accidents are caused by "car drivers", who think that once they've passed their initial road test, that they're "good drivers". Whereas in truth, they're not, the majority aren't even particularly safe drivers. That's not to say that they're all bad, because they're not, but their driving often depends on what it is that they're driving for or too.... i.e. if it's holiday or some other sort of rest/leisure activity, then they're more patient, whereas if it's going to work, or getting somewhere for work etc, then they are suffering from a certain amount of pressure to get somewhere a bit quicker, in a less safe way, than they might otherwise do.
After all, there is so much visual info that we're supposed to be able to assimilate at any given time when driving, then it's a surprise that more accidents don't happen.
Plus, if the insurance industry is given "carte blanche" to insist on installing such monitoring equipment, then they are having "their hand" strengthened even further than now, given that motoring insurance is a statutory requirement. They use that dominant social position to bleed the hell out of drivers of all kinds.....
And I for one, would prefer to see genuine, honest figures as to how the varying different social groups actually cost to insure, and not the usual drummed up, statistical lies that they roll out as an excuse to squeeze yet more money out of us........
And yes, I am being cynical. I've seen such changes abused so many times, when all any specific problem needs, is to properly enforce existing legislation, or possibly create a little new piece, but it's the vested interests that want things a certain way, and lobby government until they get what they want. Business itself, might be necessary, but it's also a craven thief, when it comes to extracting money from the nations collective wallet.... And government does nothing about that (except to enjoy the continual flow of "corporate hospitality" - oh yes, that's right, it's ok for them to accept such goods/services/gifts, as long as they publish it in some hard to understand "register of interests")...........
No comments:
Post a Comment