A new THINK! campaign launched last week (9 Oct) warns drivers of the dangers of country roads, using the strapline, ‘brake before the bend, not on it’.
The campaign says that 60% of people killed on Britain’s roads die on rural roads, and a survey commissioned as part of the campaign suggests that many more drivers are needlessly putting themselves at risk of a collision.
Rural roads are defined as “all roads outside of urban settlements with a population of 10,000 plus and with any speed limit, but excluding motorways”.
In the THINK! survey, a “shocking” 25% of drivers reported having a near miss on a country road, while 40% had been “surprised by an unexpected hazard”, such as an animal. A third of respondents also confessed to taking a bend too fast.
The THINK! team says these findings suggest many drivers are failing to anticipate dangers on the road ahead.
The research mirrors DfT casualty statistics for 2013 which show that the most commonly reported contributory factor to being killed or seriously injured on a country road is the driver losing control, often because they are driving too fast for the conditions.
The campaign includes a 40” film which will be shown online, in cinemas and at petrol stations, and radio commercials.
The film uses 3D scanning technology to illustrate that country roads are full of unforeseen hazards. This innovative visual technique allows viewers to ‘see’ through the bends on a country road and spot the unexpected dangers ahead.
The message for drivers is that, in the real world, you can’t see the perils that may lie behind a bend so it’s always best to slow down and give yourself time to react.
The campaign also includes three case studies. The first features a couple who lost their 17-year-old son on a country road, the second a horse-rider who suffered serious injuries and whose horse had to be put down because of its injuries, and the third a driver who almost died when he crashed on a bend.
Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, said: “Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world, but most people don’t know that motorists are nearly 11 times more likely to die in an accident on a country road than on a motorway. On average three people die each day on country roads and these are needless tragedies.
“I want the public to understand these risks and adapt their driving to the conditions they face. That is why the new THINK! country road campaign is so important – we are urging drivers to read the road ahead, select a safe speed and brake before the bend.”
The campaign is backed by James Cole, British Touring Car champion, who said: “As a young racing driver, I learnt a number of key skills, such as looking ahead and judging the road conditions. These skills are equally important for everyday driving in Britain.
“Being a responsible driver, I try to anticipate hidden hazards and brake before the bend, and this is critical on country roads – you just don’t know what’s around the next corner.”
FOOTNOTE: a full campaign briefing pack for road safety officers is available in the members’ area of this website.
There is no doubt that bends are a particular problem on country roads. Stats19 shows it. The problem is far greater where visibility is restricted and the severity of the bend cannot be ascertained or the observations are mixed and may result in a driver/rider entering the bend possibly too fast for the circumstances.
The road safety Handbooks tell us as drivers/riders that there are many obscure observations that we can make to attempt to establish just how severe the bend is ahead. Some may work and some not and not all drivers will know of them and use them. The local authorities have a duty and responsibility to make the roads as safe as they possibly can. Unfortunately there are many variables and possible contributory factors for an incident on a bend but at least the LA can attempt to make them safer for the use of all.
The only signs we have currently are possibly a bend sign indicating that there is a bend further along the road and pointing in the direction of that bend either right or left. There may also be some chevrons showing that there is a bend on the entrance to the bend itself and some maybe further round the bend. There maybe a combination of both or indeed none.
All such bends that have a proven record of incidents do attract authority attention and all should be identified in the same way. Other bends, indeed all bends can be identified in the same way at the discretion of the LA. and that would provide continuity.
Some counties have numerous signage on most if not all bends and some counties do not, its a bit of a lottery.
What I suggest could happen is first there needs to be a single minded approach to bends so all roads in all counties have the same form of coverage. With so much money being spent on 20 mph limits there must be monies made available to do this. Signage needs continuity.
Bob Craven Lancs Space is Safe Campaigner
0
Commentating on Duncan’s last article involving a new concept and campaign to be undertaken together with Kevin Williams. I must say that I was a little disappointed at the new campaign which to this date the 17th December I have read or seen nothing of.
Also as far as I can tell its about NO SUPRISES which means to me that in any road scenario one must assume the worse to possibly happen and ride or drive accordingly.
ie. sharp bend ahead possibly something hidden round the bend but also thinking maybe not and staying with that last thought or presumption that the road will be free ahead. Then on rounding the bend being SUPRISED that there is an obstruction there.
So no news in that one…. but we all fall foul of doing it particularly if we are on a road that we know and we become complacent.
Bob Craven Lancs Space is Safe Campaigner…
0
Coming back to the advert, it seems to me that it endorses speed on country roads.
The car is seen driving at speed past a public house, not slowing down when passing the SLOW sign in the road.
The tagline is BRAKE BEFORE THE BEND NOT ON IT. And in this it seems to imply that the problem is only at that bend. To to me the driver should have used his/her brakes (or less acceleration) many miles before the bend.
I suspect that to many drivers who are inclined to drive fast on country roads then the key message will be that “idiots who can’t control a car at speed and drift into the other carriageway can expect to die sooner or later”.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Hugh
We have already brought this motorcycle forum to the attention of our readers: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3841.html
And look forward to covering it afterwards.
Now, may I respectfully request that we get this discussion thread back onto the subject of the new THINK! campaign. Thanks for your co-operation with this.
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
0
Sounds too good to be true Duncan. Can’t wait. Hopefully this newsfeed will cover the event.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Duncan
Alas, I will be at another event on that day. But I do hope that it is as ground-breaking as you describe and I certainly look forward to its announcement.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Can’t wait for that meeting. I will be there and looking forward to hearing what transpires. I believe that we all can associate with the understanding that it’s the driver/rider/vehicle/road environment that need to be encompassed for consideration, not just one singled out as being responsible for causation.
Bob Craven, Lancs
0
You may be in luck Rod!
Along with colleagues Alf Gasparro of Helibikes and Kevin Williams of Survival Skills we are just about to launch a new campaign that will address all of the problems I have commented on in this forum in the past.
Although the campaign will initially be aimed at motorcyclists who are the worst affected by the problems in the road transport system it will no doubt have a knock-on benefit for all other road users as well. The campaign is based on the results of a great deal of research into human factors, brain theory, education theory, systems theory, manufacturing theory, accident investigation methodologies, advertising theory, human errors, psychology, perception and of course successful safety implementations in other industries outside of road transport. By combining knowledge from all these fields, we have invented something which we hope will become a benchmark for successful interventions both here and around the world. All being well we will be launching at the motorcycle safety conference at Stevenage Fire Station on the 11th of November so why not come along and see?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Over a driving lifetime, far more than 1% of drivers have accidents of one kind or another, and many more have near-misses. So it is really not a case of a tiny minority responsible for most of the problems, though the widely-applicable 80/20 rule (as in “20% of our customers buy 80% of our output, a different 20% cause 80% of our problems”) might well apply here too.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Mark:
Re: point 2 – most inventors and designers admit that many of their best ideas came to them when asleep or thinking about something else entirely. My guess is that this is in part because their unconscous minds are free to wander where their conscious minds might not. Very often too, the idea emerges almost fully formed, needing only attention to detail.
Point 8 and 9 – Was Thatcher the exception that proves those rules?
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Very laudable of Volvo. No deaths but possibly more injuries? I take it they will be reviewing the top speed and acceleration capabilties of their vehicles to help with this aim, otherwise some of their purchasers may develop a false sense of invulnerability.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh:
Volvo have a mission statement that they aim to have no-one die in a Volvo beyond 2020. That’s a pretty bold statement and shows they take their responsibility within a safe system seriously.
Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
0
I know it’s heading off the subject, but if some think the road layout is a factor, then even more of a factor must therefore be the actual vehicles we drive and ride – or more specifically the manufacturers and retailers of them – all of which are capable of going much faster than we need them to and at speeds for which the roads were not designed for?
Yes I know some will say they’re only as unsafe or dangerous as the user, but that’s my very point and obviously applies equally to the road.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
The Safe System approach is about designing the system to accomodate human error, as it is inevitable, and reducing crash severity within the boundaries of human biomechanical tolerance to injury.
In addition to the challenges associated with bend geometry already discussed, one of the biggest challenges in a rural environment is the presence of unprotected roadside objects e.g. trees.
Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
0
Duncan
I must admit to being continually impressed with your comments and knowledge. You seem to have a complete grasp of how minds work, the interaction of emotion and control, the psychology and physiology of driving, visual acuity and spatial awareness. This maybe gives you the ability to “expertly” critique almost every road safety initiative that anyone comes up with.
However, I am sure that myself and others would find it enlightening if you could perhaps suggest any initiatives that you would actually recommend for improving road safety.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
1% represents 40,000 collisions a day or 14 million a year! Mind you if that was the collision rate then maybe we would be paying more attention to the actual problems in the road transport system.
Hugh’s contention that it is not the roads, but the people that use them that are the problem shows the huge gulf that exists between the behaviourist view and the systems view of safety.
The behaviourist view of ‘blame the driver’ may be sufficient for people of average intellect to understand (which is why it’s so popular), but the systems view requires a bit of thought. TRIP TRACE views accident causation as a system, “a system being a group of regularly interacting and interrelated components that together form a unified whole. System theory views a situation in which an accident might occur as a system comprised of three components: the person (host), the machine (agency) and the environment. The likelihood of an ccident is determined by how the three components
interact”.
It is in understanding the interactions between those three elements that will help us along the path towards reducing the numbers of accidents and incidents.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Bob:
Observe a couple of hundred drivers/riders behaviour at a junction or bend or even on a stretch of road etc. and you’ll see how individuals’ driving/riding abilities vary so much – some wholly safe, some reasonably safely, some not at all. For the duration of your survey, the only constant will be the road itself. Any improvements carried out buy the authorities are to make the layout more forgiving for the latter group of users.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I have heard it all before… the argument that there is no such thing as a dangerous road just dangerous drivers.
However there is a growing understanding, more recently, that have proved that road engineering has improved the safety of a particular stretch of road.
We cannot bury our heads in the sand and say that it was all the drivers fault anymore. Engineering as shown with the concerns and paper produced by the Inst. Of Highway Engineers which has identified areas in the past that were wrong and need rectification.
Those matters could to my mind be a total causation of accidents or in some way a contributory factor. Such as a road surface which under wet weather conditions doesn’t give the highest form of grip, being laid due to financial considerations as opposed to one that costs a little more but gives greater grip. More suited to twv as opposed to cars.
bob craven Lancs
0
Yes Bob, but the low number of actual accidents conceals the generally poor standard of driving/riding still prevalent on our roads so we shouldn’t be giving up on trying to raise the standards. My point was that it’s not the the roads (or the bends on them) that are the problem, it’s the people using them!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Cant argue with that Hugh.
Just need to say that 100% of road users drive or ride on our roads but only 1% (approximation) have accidents, incidents or collisions. Therefore 99% don’t. And yet an industry and profession has developed to stop those 1% that unfortunately become involved in incidents and collisions.
bob craven Lancs
0
Aren’t we overlooking something? If these bends are as bad or even ‘dangerous’ as some claim, there would be more accidents on them but 99.9% of the traffic negotiate them without incident. A bit of thought on the part of the driver or rider is all that is required – oh and a moderate, controllable speed.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Well said Bob! At last someone has identified the nub of the problem. Some interesting facts about the design of corners might help.
Although there are three basic corner types; constant radius, tightening and widening, there is only one curve sign and that shows a constant radius. The last chevron board is at the physical apex of the corner yet for a lot of corners that last chevron cannot be seen from the corner entry. There is no sign to indicate those corners that have been realigned and now feature a spiral easement on their entry.
Running wide at the exit of a corner is a major killer, yet correct corner entry technique (turn late, turn quick, turn once) massively reduces its likelihood yet it is not taught (in fact drivers with black-box insurance systems are penalised for it).
‘Stop in the distance you can see to be clear’ doesn’t work in blind corners (verifiable with a simple thought experiment).
These are just a few examples of the design failures that act as resident pathogens in most of our rural roads. They kill and maim hundreds of people, especially motorcyclists, every year yet it’s usually the poor driver or rider that gets the ‘blame’ when things inevitably go wrong.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
I believe most of us who frequent these columns are aware of what constitute hazards, though in general motoring terms we may be in a minority. It is with advertising campaigns that the wider majority can be reached – if they are willing to listen. However, their effectiveness is often hard to establish, though still needs to be done.
‘Making progress’ is the Police term for getting a move on. Most drivers do this without the necessary perception of the effects of speed, against hazards encountered. They are driving on what they can see. If they see the same repeated events along a familiar route, and that their journey is usually a safe one, then a degree of complacency sets in. Perception of danger is reduced. This is compounded by the need to be at a certain place in a certain time.
The two cars overturning in one year outside my home were due to excessive speed for the bend, on a wet road. The effects were loss of traction causing a panic reaction (to) brake heavily which compounded the skid. Inertia caused the vehicles to hit the opposite bank, the reaction of the vehicle mass upon impact was to flip the vehicle. Greater awareness of effects, and a controlled approach, would have prevented both incidents.
As to being aware of the possibility of such an event happening from the viewpoint of another driver coming the other way, one can only slow so much. Even a stationary vehicle may have been involved in the incident. Such events can involve perfectly innocent third parties. The only way to avoid them is to not venture out.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
We are talking about bends and as muted previously about the need to structure some form of intervention with regards to educate the driver. This would be in an attempt to instruct him on the possible dangers and of a need to have more information and a greater understanding. To pay more attention to bends in general in the belief that it will make him a safer driver.
The constant here is not the driver as they are subject to many influences. The only constant is the danger of the bend itself. I am sure that when they were built there was no such thing as road safety, it wasn’t a concern to the builders. Now it is. By looking at bends under this light it can be determined what action could be feasibly taken in order to make that bend safer. It may be altering the camber or narrowing the road or building in other informational devises aimed at instructing the approaching drivers just how dangerous that bend is. If Tim from the DfT wants to get in touch I have some ideas in this regards.
PS. Before someone ridicules this may I remind them that it is not new thinking. We are prepared to spend millions on altering existing road structures to accommodate and make cycling a safer form of transport. Why not bends for everyones benefit?
bob craven Lancs
0
Hi Hugh
I agree Perfect Day is a great ad. We decided not to do something similar on this occasion as we wanted to keep it single minded to bends. It’s still online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZHUZWVL82E&list=PL80A7F9A340C55679
And in fact some TV stations still show it to ‘fill’ unsold air space. If you would like a copy please email dftpublicity@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Tim Lennon, Department for Transport
0
Tim:
Seeing as you have made yourself known, I always thought the best Think! video particularly for country roads was ‘A Perfect Day’ which although aimed at bikers was just as valid for motorists. Do the ads get deleted after a while and a new one has to be produced? I’ve yet to see a better road safety video that shows how we should expect real-life hazards.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Some great views in this thread. What do you think of the following points? I’m not saying any are right or wrong.
1*The change process is dynamic, heterogeneous and stimulus driven.
2*The subconscious mind is very powerful and can be superb at information processing and learning – hence the light bulb or ah ha effect.
3*The conscious mind can learn by rote – serial processing; good for learning simple fundamentals, which may then be linked to new areas of knowledge by the subconscious mind – parallel processing, more light bulb moments!
4*Conscious and subconscious mind can work together to acquire new knowledge and skills.
5*Great teachers inspire, challenge and motivate.
6*Brilliant teachers, instructors, coaches, mentors, facilitators, wise persons ‘dole out knowledge/lead the way/point the way’ for the student.
7*Brilliant teachers are great communicators.
8*Great communicators are charismatic, empathic and are not afraid to show emotion.
9*Great leaders lead from the front and when required also from behind and aren’t afraid to delegate.
10*The most effective students: a) are willing to explore the unknown; b) tell their teachers/coaches/mentors etc. ‘don’t bother with all the pink and fluffy stuff, just tell me what I need to know’.
11*There are no inherently bad teaching methods, just the wrong method at the wrong time with the wrong student.
12*World class organisations value success and failure.
14*Hypnotherapists can contribute to positive behaviour change; they also use CBT and NLP.
15*The cornering process can be described by mathematics.
Mark – Wiltshire
0
Attention is a very interesting subject indeed because attention is either directed or attracted. In the normal run of things our attention is directed towards those elements in the environment that form the next stage in the event sequence and are therefore very much part of sub-concious processing. Attention will also be directed from the conscious if we are searching for a specific element in the environment such as a house number or a road name etc. Attention is attracted on the other hand when off-normal or out of sequence events occur in the environment. This is what happens when a dashboard warning light comes on, or the mobile phone rings etc. This gives us three triggers for attention, sequence step, active search and off-normal event. The active search is the most effortful and therefore most likely to be dropped yet it is the activity that is most desirable if further learning is to take place.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
As Jeff rightly says “… always expect the unexpected..” and whilst this THINK video is aimed at the driver going too fast for the bend, it could equally be aimed at whoever is coming the other way – be prepared!
My local ‘B’ road has a double bend after a long straight stretch marked with chevrons and yet it is not unusual to see cars come around the (blind) bend towards me too fast with absolutely no chance of being able to stop if they have to and more importantly with a chance of not making the bend at all and continuing in a straight towards me!
Always try and think of an escape plan for ‘what if?’ scenarios.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Eric:
I’m glad someone else appears to understand the contents of the old Roadcraft manual.
I live and work in one of the most rural areas in the country where most of our main A&B roads would resemble country lanes in most counties and it is nearer 70% of our KSIs are on these roads.
One of the main outcomes in KSIs are that drivers & riders end up on the wrong side of the road and even worse end up off the carriageway altogether through stone walls and fences.
Whether it is inexperience or not being aware of road hazards, or a combination of both, I don’t know but in addition to the large warning signs drivers & riders don’t seem to interpret the road markings that more white paint signifies more danger, particularly in inclement conditions, or appreciation of the ‘arrowhead principle’ and continue to accellerate into a bend that is becoming more severe by the second as illustrated in the video. Surprisingly the majority of those involved in Cumbria collisions are local drivers.
Concentration is a key to safe driving and to always expect the unexpected, if you drive to your limitations it won’t prevent you being involved in a collision but if you are it won’t be you that caused it.
Jeff, Cumbria
0
You’ve made some interesting points Duncan, particularly relating to System 1 and System 2 processing. However, let’s not confuse conscious and sub-conscious processing functions with the need for attention. Attention relates to the acquisition of information, which is required for either type of processing to occur. Therefore it is pertinent for drivers to concentrate on paying attention to driving and acquiring as much information about their surroundings as possible.
Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
0
Interesting points Tim, but of course drink driving is a ‘deliberate act’ and therefore subject to different psychological processes to the cornering situation.
In this video the idea that the driver was taking the bend too fast is only something that can be known to external observers in hindsight. For the driver concerned the speed of approach would have been perfectly correct because it had been perfectly correct for the thousands of bends that preceeded the one that finally got him. This is a perfect example of availability and fluency heuristics at work by the way! The local rationality principle states that what people do makes sense to them at the time given their goals, knowledge and focus of attention. A campaign that suggests people should slow down so they have more time to react is not going to work because people are (or think they are) already doing that!
That fact that rural bends are a significant problem is not in any doubt, but the solution to the problem does not lie at the moment with an expensive advertising campaign, but with a need for a deeper understanding of the actual cornering process. Once the cornering process is fully understood to a fundamental level then it is perfectly possible to look at the failure modes in that process and see how those modes can be eliminated or reduced in outcome severity.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Good to know the DfT take an interest in what’s being said on this forum.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hi all. Thank you for your comments – a very interesting debate! This is a new issue for us so all feedback is useful.
Hugh – this particular video features a loss of control as the driver takes the bend too fast, other videos will feature unexpected hazards on the driver’s side of the road. Our deer ad is being published on Youtube today.
Duncan makes a very good point about WSIATI. Prior experience is always a big influence on future behaviour. However there are other biases that can work in our favour. For example, Kahneman also identifies how availability and fluency heuristics can affect the probability people apply to an event happening. I believe you can see this in our drink drive campaign. Our tracking shows that despite well publicised cuts in policing budgets, the perception that people will be caught has actually gone up. This could be in part due to our campaign (and local police force campaigns obviously!) which by focusing on the consequences of a drink drive conviction and making the event more salient, may also have contributed to the increased probability people now give to getting caught. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/think-drink-driving/think-drink-driving. This is closer to the unconscious influences Duncan refers to and we hope to see something similar on this campaign.
This is definitely a difficult area to influence, but we will evaluate how the campaign performs and will be happy to share the results and any learnings.
Tim Lennon, Department for Transport
0
Peter
Hazards can be generated by three things:
1. conditions (fog, snow, ice, rain, dark, dazzling sun, loose gravel)
2. road layout (hidden junctions, narrow sections, unfamiliar roads, “traffic calming” measures, blind summits, sharp bends,)
3. other road users, whether they be cyclists, pedestrians, horses, cars, etc.
“Driving” is making progress while dealing with hazards.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Well it works for me Duncan and no doubt millions of others.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Loved the original text which referred to the other hazards, animals and cyclists.
Is it official that the DfT recognise cyclists as hazards! Or was it just poor script. Debate.
peter London
0
Drivers that are continuously, consciously concentrating are the very last thing we need! The concious part of the brain is a slow and serial processor of information yet the information from the road environment comes in fast and in parallel. As there are four similtaneous tasks involved in driving which are navigating, predicting, controlling and informing, which one of these would Hugh suggest that drivers concentrate on? A learner driver who lacks any sub-concious skills is forced to make these choices all the time. This is why we see them veering all over the place when their attention is diverted to the simple act of changing gear or reading a direction sign for example. The fact that an experienced driver can easily manage all the required tasks similtaneously shows that it’s their sub-concious that’s actually doing the driving.
Rather than explain in detail about our two speed brain I would thoroughly recommend the book ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’ by the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman as that will tell you all you need to know.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
I think Duncan’s analysis is another way of describing the difference between a driver who concentrates and is always alert for anything whilst driving and tends to remain accident free, and another who just goes through the motions with only minimal attention, so when something does happens – e.g the tractor emerging – he/she is not able to focus in time to deal with it. We need a way of getting the latter group to continuously, consciously concentrate!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
You would be perfectly correct in saying that a “mature intellect learns not only how to anticipate possible future events but also to put values according to probability and scale of impact on them” if we were only dealing with stuff that happens in the conscious mind not the subconcious one. The problem is of course that for most people the driving task happens mainly in the subconcious mind using a form of auto-pilot.
For the vast majority of people the driving task has been mostly self taught using the DWEED* process and so most of the programming of the autopilot has come directly from that process. There is always some transmission from conscious to sub-conscious, but as that usually requires a degree of cognitive strain it doesn’t tend to happen very often. The big problem that has to be overcome by the behaviourists (who don’t recognise the idea of the sub-conscious) is to be able to program the sub-conscious without invoking cognitive strain in the conscious mind.
*DWEED = Doing What Everybody Else Does.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
As far as I am aware, Relativity and Evolution are generally referred to as theories, not laws. This is not to say that I don’t see some truth in the notion that people become conditioned by their experience, but to be a “Law” I think this needs to be universally and consistently true and that does not appear to be the case. Surely in the case of scratchcards, the experience of the “buzz” would automatically become associated with the experience of losing, being far and away the most common outcome. As regards houses, I continue to insure mine, even though catastrophe has never befallen it. This is contrary to the evidence which to date shows that it is always still standing when I go back to it. It seems to me a mature intellect learns not only how to anticipate possible future events but also to put values according to probability and scale of impact on them, and to use this to determine choice of action. So my perception is entirely opposite to yours: humans are very capable of analysing alternative outcomes in proportion to each other, and it is this that enables them confidently to leave the house.
Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
0
Well Tim, relativity is still a theory as is evolution! The Wikipedia caveat that the theory should not be taken literally is because of the potential time delay between nearly similtaneous events. The differences in the speed of light and the speed of sound mean that we hear the bang some time after seeing the flash, but Hebbs law ensures we connect the two.
The probability of alternative outcomes to those that have been conditioned by experience is something that we humans are generally very poor at doing because it serves us well to be poor at it. If we were to contemplate alternatives for every situation we would never leave the house lest it burnt down whilst we were away.
The gambling analogy is quite interesting in that gamblers thrive on the anticipation of the win far more than the win itself. This means that Hebbs law is still valid because purchasing the ticket is guaranteed to give an anticipatory buzz.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
If I may quote a certain well-known online information source, the phrase “neurons that fire together wire together”‘should not be taken literally’. The same information source advises Hebb’s “Law” is also referred to as Hebb’s “Theory” and frankly this is probably more appropriate than suggesting that it is a “Law” in the same way the provable and consistent Laws of Thermodynamics are “Laws”. What a binary world we would inhabit if we really did get conditioned in a way which didn’t recognise probability of alternative outcomes in a situation. For a start, anyone who had ever lost money gambling on a scratchcard would never buy one again (unless losing money was their aim). This is manifestly not the case.
Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
0
David & Hugh might be interested in Hebb’s law on how the brain stores learning experiences. It says that ‘neurons that fire together wire together, neurons that fire apart wire apart and neurons that fire in sequence wire in sequence’. So according to Hebb’s law if a sign says tractor (first neuron firing) and it turns out there is no tractor (second neuron firing) the law says that the learnt sequence will be IF tractor sign THEN no tractor!
Hebb’s Law means that drivers are not being ‘thick’ when they ignore a warning sign, but are just doing what they have been taught.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Can there really be drivers on our roads who truly expect to see tractors on every occasion there is a sign warning of their possible presence? If so, there is no hope.
David, Suffolk
0
The warning signs advise that there MAY be a particular hazard ahead. At present TSRGD does not have a selection of signs where particularly thick motorists may be using the road. Perhaps they should.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
That of course is perfectly true Hugh, but these signs only have value if they themselves are true. From a behaviourist point of view the value of a sign warning of tractors is significantly diminished if it turns out there are no tractors on the next road section. A sign that is only occasionally true is essentially ‘crying wolf’ and people would soon learn to ignore such signs.
It seems rather strange that an industry so wedded to the behaviourist ideal fails to understand the simple basics of behaviourism and expects people to respond to a stimulus when they have not been fully conditioned to do so.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Probably right Duncan, but we do have triangular traffic signs warning motorists/riders of possible hazards up ahead on country roads e.g. bends, gradients, narrow roads, no footways, hump-back bridges wildlife, tractors turning, concealed entrances etc. to help forewarn of the ‘unknown’.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Perhaps this explanation of WYSIATI from the book ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’ by Daniel Kahneman might clarify what’s actually going on.
“To explain overconfidence, Kahneman introduces the concept he labels What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI). This theory states that when the mind makes decisions, it deals primarily with Known Knowns, phenomena it has already observed. It rarely considers Known Unknowns, phenomena that it knows to be relevant but about which it has no information. Finally it appears oblivious to the possibility of Unknown Unknowns, unknown phenomena of unknown relevance”.
I think ‘out of sight, out of mind’ states it quite memorably.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
I presumed this message was aimed at motorists driving reasonably normally, but who were not expecting something or someone around the corner on their side of the road and not being able to stop in time eg a tractor, fallen tree, animal etc. – not a motorist already driving so fast they can’t make the bend and driving head on towards a tractor the driver of which had done nothing wrong. Who’s the message aimed at – the car driver or the tractor driver? It would have been better to show a tractor emerging from a field on the motorist’s side of the road, just after the bend, and then say “If only you could see the danger through the bend”.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
This campaign puts visual techniques to good use. With the mix of exposure planned (cinema, online, radio, petrol station screens and Twitter) it is certain to be seen by a large number of drivers. The campaign has picked up some excellent media coverage so far and Road Safety GB are keen to support.
James Gibson, Leicestershire
0
I live on such a road, and outside are bends – on one of which two cars have overturned through excessive speed in wet conditions, and two more ploughed through hedges. The drivers bar one have been young, and I seem to be the only person who drives at a reasonable pace, and in doing so collect a queue of one or three cars behind. They sit close, often are young Mums, and the males grab any opportunity to overtake. How much of this is down to manufacturers in-building power and comfort, and how much a lack of education in responsibilities?
Good video. A considerable proportion of local traffic is tractors – often with implements mounted that are wider than the tractor. Mud on the road exacerbates any problems too, but all too often speed is of the essence. There are those who will never learn.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0