Opinion: A New Year wish list

12.00 | 6 January 2015 | | 15 comments

Nick Rawlings, editor of Road Safety News, voices his opinion on other people’s opinions… 

I wish that more road safety professionals would contribute to the discussion threads and debates that emanate from stories on the newsfeed.

Overall, readership of the newsfeed is going from strength to strength with a record number of visits and visitors in four of the past 12 months.

But, in my view, too few road safety professionals participate in the discussion threads, which is a pity as they are the primary audience for the newsfeed.

It’s been suggested that some local authority employees are forbidden from participating, but if people were really keen to do so I’m sure they could find a way round this.

Could it be that some road safety officers lack the confidence to become involved in discussions? Or that they feel in some way intimidated by the vociferous minority who sometimes monopolize proceedings? 

Equally, I wish that some of our regular contributors would restrict their comments to topics about which they have a degree of expertise. Often, this is how people from outside the profession first become involved in posting comments, but some broaden their involvement by commenting on all manner of stories and topics – often without any real understanding of the subject. 

There could be an element of people getting to like the sound of their own voice and gaining personal satisfaction from seeing their comments in print.

It would also be great if some contributors could take a more balanced approach when posting comments. Many of the posts are very negative in their content, and some contributors make almost entirely negative contributions.

Some, it would appear, are using the comments facility to express their disdain for all things road safety. This is a pity because it alienates readers and colours their judgement when considering any valid points that these contributors make.

So there you have it – my aspirations for 2015: more participation by more people – especially road safety professionals. And a more balanced and considered approach from some of our regular contributors.

Happy New Year to everyone!

 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Nick, the service you provide, firstly by publishing so many interesting articles and secondly by allowing anybody that feel inclined to comment can only be commended. You’re doing a great job and I certainly appreciate your dedication.

    Illegitimi non carborundum.


    Elaine Northern Ireland
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    For the record as Hugh has mentioned my experience; I passed my motorcycle driving test in 1963 with no prior formal instruction (North London). My car driving test a few years later after two one hour sessions; one with a driving school, and one with the local milkman in his car. Many years passed by during which I was a delivery van driver, but not until 1970 did I receive any further education in driving until I Joined the former London Transport Country Buses & Coaches, and began to realise just how much I had not known about defensive driving and observation – two weeks of full time strict adherence to a system. Five years followed driving buses and Coaches receiving from the Road Operator’s Road Safety Council a diploma for safe driving, after which I spent the vast majority of 28yrs as a despatch rider. There was a day spent with a Police instructor Class I riding around North Wales from Knutsford, and from which I received a diploma of sorts, but I would not call myself an expert – just knowledgeable, with experience.


    Derek Reynolds, Salop.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Following Mr Gullon’s comment, I wouldn’t blame Nick for responding with: ‘I rest my case’!


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    ‘lo Nick,

    If you mean public servants by “road safety professionals” you are spot on by “forbidden” (whether express or implied). And with your policy of providing “name and location” there is no ” … way round this.”

    Furthermore, my research (see “degree of expertise” at end) has shown that general speed limits were founded, and continue to be supported by, non-science (primarily failing to account for any change in traffic volume in their before/after studies of new/changed speed limits). In that regard it is worthy of note that, in every country, people express their disdain for the, mostly ridiculous, speed limits with their throttle foot … i.e. going 15 to 20kmph over. Unfortunately the a/m non-science has driven a massive wedge between the public and their police who must enforce the posted limit in their full and painful knowledge that speed is NOT the primary cause of crashes.

    DEGREE OF EXPERTISE
    20 years of traffic safety research (using data publically available through libraries and, laterally, the internet), 11 papers presented in venues around the world. That ‘official’ data was supplemented with roadway observations: 68,000kms on rental cars in Europe and several thousand more in chauffeured vehicles in countries in which I didn’t know the language (or didn’t want to drive ‘on the wrong side of the road 🙂 )


    Al Gullon, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Reminds me of Groucho Marx’ “distinguished amateur brain surgeon”! Of course there are many professions in which relevant experience and expertise is absolutely critical, but I for one am happy here to learn from others whatever their qualifications and/or experience. And in any case experience in other fields, whether economics, engineering (and even politics, for which no minimum educational standards are required) can bring fresh light to road safety issues.

    As you agreed quite some time ago Nick, what would be the point of debate and discussion if everyone agreed about everything?

    One final point (for now). Anyone involved in engineering design, science etc would confirm that many of the enormous advances we have seen for 100+ years were triggered by a chance remark by someone with no specialist knowledge of the subject – like the little boy who asked for the photograph his father had just taken, was told it would take a week or so, and asked “WHY?” His father then started Polaroid.

    So please, please assess comments on their merit, not on cv’s. Indeed, present company excepted of course, I have seen and heard more drivel from supposed professionals over the last 20 years than I ever belied possible.


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Matt: My last few words “…whose interest and motivation is not necessarily the greater good of all road users” is the reason why I have an issue with some contributors. If non-professionals put forward something informed and useful, that’s fine, for example I think Derek is, or was, a PSV or HGV driver (correct me if I’m wrong Derek!) which most readers/contributors probably aren’t, so his input would be useful to those whose job it is to consider these particular road users – same for cyclist, horse-riders, peds. etc. There are however a few contributors who ae not as well informed and simply have a personal axe to grind which, whilst it’s a free country, this does not always give a good impression to the odd reader who looks at this site only occasionally and won’t be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh:
    I think the openness of this forum to anybody, however “disgruntled” as you put it, is where it’s true value lies. It is far too easy in any profession to become insular and forget the wide range of individuals and groups that have some sort of vested interest in the field.

    What Nick’s opinion post reflects is that there are often very few contributions to discussions from professionals (i.e. those employed to fulfil a statutory duty to reduce road casualties) and he has suggested some reasons why that might be the case in the hope that more can be encouraged to contribute.

    As for stating credentials, I don’t mention my employer when I comment because my opinions are exactly that: MY opinions, not theirs. But, if you want to check credentials, those who are happy to share will most likely have some sort of online profile/information e.g. LinkedIn.


    Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    There are a number of disciplines that can claim to be road safety professionals:
    Road Safety GB is primarily here for the professional road safety officer who delivers road safety education, training and publicity (ETP) interventions that are designed to address specific elements or behaviours and, by doing so; break the chain of events that lead to a collision or casualty.

    We work in partnership with other professionals such as highways engineers, roads policing officers, driving instructors, teachers and third sector organisations e.g. IAM, RoSPA, who all bring something different to the road safety table. We provide the Newsfeed as a unique forum where road safety professionals and any other interested parties can discuss and exchange views on road safety related issues. We believe that conversations between professionals, enthusiasts and everyday users are all important – none of us lives in an ivory tower nor do we want to.

    And none of us has “the solution” – there isn’t one single cause of collisions and nor is there one solution. Collision causations, contributory factors, systems and human failings and errors are all parts of the story. Within our ETP remit, communication and the provision of relevant information through the right means to the people who need it are as important as sound, effective education and training.

    Through the development of the Road Safety GB Academy and with the active support of the Department for Transport and the wider road safety professions, we are working towards an accredited, effective profession that works with others to share and improve knowledge, expertise and professional practice. Our common aims are to reduce collisions and casualties on our roads.


    Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    As far as I know, this site is, and always was, aimed at those whose responsibilty it is, whether salaried or charitable status, to try and reduce accidents on our roads, traditionally via the three ‘E’s: Education, Enforcement and Education. The idea is that such people who have expertise in one or more of these areas can usefully inform others triggered by the news items that come up. That’s not to say ‘outsiders’, for want of a better word, wouldn’t have something useful to say, perhaps because of their own occupation or their interest in the subject, I just think it would be useful to know this when reading other’s comments. I would not like to see this forum ‘hijacked’ by disgruntled motorists and representatives of motoring pressure groups whose interest and motivation is not necessarily the greater good of all road users.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    What is a road safety professional? What qualifications are required to make one a road safety professional? How many are there? Who do they work for and in what position?

    Are professional drivers road safety experts, or just professional drivers?
    Are the drivers who drive professionally for decades without an accident – road safety experts? Or just lucky individuals?

    I am sure the latter outnumber the former, and so the balance of contributors will inevitably come down to the latter. Whether the former are aware, willing or even allowed to involve in contributing their views to RSGB, is yet another element.

    I also believe that since the middle of last year when many more articles have appeared on RSGB, individual comments have reduced per article. There is only so much time one has to read and comment on all. The ground has increased in size, but whilst the seeds may have increased they are spread thinner.


    Derek Reynolds, Salop.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I would echo Nick’s encouragement for more people to contribute to the Newsfeed. Not least because it is a good technical exercise in succinct expression. But also because participation in the debate encourages us all to reconsider our views in the light of information and ideas that may be new to us. So the more, the better I think.

    It’s true that at times some of the debates have descended into a rather unseemly pantomime of conflicting views but Nick does a stirling job of moderating the discussion. So if you have been teetering on the poolside, come on in. The water’s not nearly as shark-infested as it might at first appear. If you’ve got an informed view, I for one would like to hear it.


    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Fair point Nick…I’m sure I’m not alone in having it on my ‘to do’ list…sadly it never quite makes it to the top of the list. I will try harder….promise!


    Iain Temperton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Happy New Year – you make some good points Nick.

    Be careful what you wish for though – the ‘for profit’ road safety industry and it’s associated ‘charities’ are severely lacking in driving or road safety expertise.

    As for negativity – most of the pseudo-road safety measures are aimed at obstructing driving and increasing prosecutions – hardly a cause for celebration by 32 million drivers.

    How about a positive article congratulating the UK’s economically and socially vital drivers for travelling over 500 billion unsupervised vehicle km each year with much less death and injury than in the home?


    Paul Biggs, Staffodshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Without wishing to exclude individuals, perhaps contributors could at least be required to state their relevant background and professional/amateur status, so readers could at least take their comments in context?


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Fair comment Nick and in my view, long overdue.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close