Transport part 3- Driver testing and training and driving styles

Driving styles

Most of the people who derive enjoyment from the physical process of driving, or being driven, do so at least partly because of the sense of movement, similar to the enjoyment people get from being on a roller-coaster.  Unfortunately, it has become almost taboo to admit to this in the UK because of the stigmas generated by "boy racer" types who insist on driving excessively fast and/or "energetically" and take unacceptably high risks, and that's partly why I am so used to responses like, "Go to a race track."  In reality, in many circumstances, particularly on country lanes with a 50 or 60mph speed limit, it is possible to get a strong sense of movement without having to drive particularly fast or "energetically", and while keeping within the speed limit.

As a non-driver and passenger I also appreciate the variety in driving styles between individuals, i.e. being driven out by motorist A will often be a different experience from being driven out by motorist B.

But there is a strong push from road safety and environmental organisations to try to homogenise driving styles over to the "slow and smooth" extreme, e.g. through a combination of lower speed limits, road design, and "black box" technology which can be used to monitor people's driving styles.  There are various reasons as to why many groups advocate driving smoothly, e.g. reducing wear and tear on car parts, giving a smooth ride for passengers, reducing fuel consumption, and discouraging "boy racer" type tendencies.  But if driving slowly and smoothly is taken to too much of an extreme, you are left with just a limited sense that you are actually moving, and so much of the scope to enjoy the "making progress" aspects of driving/being driven is lost.

Driving "energetically" is not something that you either do or you don't, it is a sliding scale and it is relative.  If enforcement of smooth driving styles becomes increasingly draconian over the next 20 years then there is every chance that driving styles that are considered "smooth" today may be considered "energetic" in 20 years' time.  Ultimately, although these groups don't like to admit it, there is a strongly negative and unpopular agenda behind the push for slow and smooth driving styles- namely, to take the glamour out of driving and instil into everybody that driving should be purely a means of getting from A to B and not a means of "expressing yourself", and to get all "pleasure driving" tarnished by association with the reckless minority.
I have read campaign articles saying that enforcing slow and smooth driving styles very strictly would negate many of the downsides of car use.  Unfortunately, as I established in Part 1 of this series, it would also heavily negate most of the benefits as well.

Problems with the UK's current system of driver testing

The problem with the UK's training/testing system for drivers is not that it is too easy to pass (the UK driving test is one of the most gruelling and difficult to pass in the world), it is that it is too easy for people to become fully licenced drivers before they are ready for it.

Drivers are taught how to drive primarily in order to pass the test, where they must conform strictly to a certain approved style of driving and learn how to drive effectively at slow speeds in and around urban areas, and they do not get a strong grounding in areas such as car control and high-speed driving (most notably on dual carriageways and motorways) and adapting to different driving conditions.  Additions like the hazards perception test have improved matters a little but are still far from ideal.   Once drivers have passed the test, it is common for them to feel that they have to learn to drive all over again.

A common problem, particularly among teenage drivers, is a temptation to rebel against the rules and restrictions that they had to comply with in order to pass the test, such as by trying out motorway driving and long-distance journeys almost immediately, and driving "energetically" (rapid acceleration, going fast around corners etc. to get a greater sense of movement like on a roller-coaster).  Unfortunately, due to their inexperience and lack of understanding of car control, they initially have a poor idea of what is and isn't safe, and learn through trial and error, and the "error" part of this occasionally has tragic consequences.  Some drivers end up developing bad habits as a result of the trial and error because they have nothing to guide them regarding what is and isn't a good habit to get into.

I am used to many people being remarkably defensive of the idea that the rules of the driving test are always right because the rules are the rules, and insisting that anything that deviates from them is a bad habit, despite acknowledging that many of these rules are tailored to the novice driver's lack of experience and therefore may not be as applicable to relatively advanced drivers.  It is an attitude that we must shake off, as there is considerable room for improvement.

Proposed solutions

Thus, I am in favour of a more graduated system that focuses more on training than on error-based testing, to help drivers to achieve a large understanding of car control and hazard perception before they are fully "let loose" on the roads.  

The important point is being able to understand how to read the road correctly and be able to see and appreciate real and potential hazards in front of you, and drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions, ensuring that you are in the right gear and right position to give yourself a very favourable chance of avoiding an accident if unexpected hazards arise.  This is something that comes through experience, but it also helps somewhat if motorists are guided in the right sort of direction to begin with, as if they are not guided, there is a greater risk of them developing bad habits.  There are various aspects of systems like Pass Plus and police driver training, for example, that could be incorporated into a more graduated system.

As part of the graduated system, drivers who have not been fully through the process will have to be restricted in some ways before they get a full licence.  I favour restrictions that are tailored to the individuals' lack of experience and do not impinge heavily upon other road users, rather than "restrict everybody to legislate for the minority" type ones.  Thus, for example, restrictions on engine size and the types of high-speed road driven on may be advisable, prior to candidates learning the skills behind driving on high-speed roads and car control.  But when drivers with incomplete licences are subject to restrictions like lower speed limits and being banned from taking non-family members with them, this has negative impacts upon others.

One upshot of this is that there will be some people who simply don't have the required levels of skill and/or confidence to become fully-licensed drivers.  This is a significant problem in a car-dependent country like the UK where so many of us see the private car as a necessity rather than a luxury.  Thus, this ties in with what I blogged about in Part 1, i.e. we need to become less dependent on the car so that people are not heavily disadvantaged if they don't drive.

"Solutions" that I don't agree with

Instead, many people propose keeping the UK's testing system as it is, and legislating for its flaws by tightening up the restrictions on drivers, especially new drivers who are within two years of passing their driving tests.  Here are three, in particular, that I condemn:

1.  Restrictions on driving out non-family members.  It makes sense that if a driver's parent is present in the car, then the driver is less likely to drive recklessly than if it is a group of friends from school.  But when we get situations where someone is allowed to drive out a sibling or first cousin, but not a close friend, or where driving out a close friend is allowed only if there is a work-related reason for driving (because work is considered essential but recreation isn't) it starts to get unreasonable very quickly, as blood ties and work have very little bearing on the likelihood of someone being incited into driving recklessly.

2.  Lower speed limits for new drivers.  This results in experienced drivers being held up behind inexperienced drivers at 30% below the "standard" speed limit and the inexperienced drivers knowing that they can't speed up or they will soon find themselves up to the 6 penalty points and being forced to go through the whole learning/training/testing process again.

3.  Dumbing road traffic laws down to the lowest common denominator.  The argument here is, if the problem is that the current driver training/testing system doesn't give drivers enough of a grounding in things like car control, we can restrict traffic so that eventually traffic is so heavily restricted that drivers never need to make use of those skills.  This sort of policy would heavily negate many of the advantages that cars bring to society.

There will be situations where the public's lack of driving skill will be exposed, such as when overtaking a tractor on a country lane and finding that a car is coming the other way, thus requiring a burst of speed to complete the overtaking move without being hit full-on.  I suppose we could legislate for those with further draconian restrictions like banning overtaking, and enforcing those with "black boxes" too, but seriously, is this really where we want to be headed?

Freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of speech and expression is under threat due to our tendency to legislate for the minority who abuse it

No, I don't believe in unlimited freedom of speech and expression- it should be bounded by the responsibility to be considerate towards others and not actively encourage actions that impinge on others' freedoms.  I have no problem with society frowning upon expression of views like, "X is inferior because he's black", for example.

The problem is a variation on the "legislating for idiots" problem that I have also blogged about.  When clamping down against unreasonable speech and expression, we tend to feel obliged to show a hard-line approach, which means being willing to tarnish innocent speech and expression by association.  Such an approach can be "justified" on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life", and/or by setting up rules that mandate it and then insisting that "rules are rules".

Example 1:  Clamping down against those who support illegal activities, and in doing so, stifling the ability of others to question the correctness of the law without being jumped on by association.

B.  As a community we do not tolerate views that condone/support copyright infringement.  Anyone who expresses such views will be banned.
A.  Download copyrighted file P from file-sharing site Q.  Here's a link.
B.  Instant ban for A.  That's the sort of thing that we don't allow.
C.  I believe that copyright law X is too restrictive because it prohibits activity Y, and Y probably doesn't erode content creators' sales and benefits the consumer.
B.  Therefore you condone Y, which is a form of copyright infringement, so you will be banned too.

Such "no condoning copyright infringement" policies are common on internet sites to guard against people like A, who could potentially get a site sued by copyright holders for posting links to illegal downloads.  But they are also used against people like C when they try to speak out against what, in their opinion, are unreasonably stringent copyright laws.

Example 2:  We clamp down against dangerous activities and the expression of views that support them.  As a result, those who speak out against the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders end up having their views stigmatised by association with those of offenders.

B.  We do not support reckless driving because of the way that it results in tragic loss of life.
A.  I want to be allowed to drive as fast as I like, because I find it fun.
B.  If you want to drive as fast as you like, go to a race track.
C.  I don't agree with the progressive tightening up of traffic restrictions.  While a minority do drive recklessly for pleasure, and I support clamping down against those people, a lot of people currently get enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner too.  If the restrictions are tightened too much, this will be lost, and I don't support phasing out the recreational side of driving as part of clamping down against the minority who abuse it.
B.  Pleasure should never come before safety.  If you want to enjoy driving, go to a race track.

In effect, C's views are tarnished by association with those of A, since C is not arguing that "boy racer" type behaviour should be allowed, but is rather arguing that the freedoms of responsible law-abiding motorists should not be sacrificed as part of clamping down against it.  I am very used to arguing positions like C and being dismissed simply with the one-liner, "Go to a race track."

Political correctness and avoiding offence

The term "political correctness" is often over-used.  Here, I am thinking mainly of the philosophy where we outlaw language that can cause offence and/or encourage negative stereotyping of vulnerable groups, in the hope that it will make people question widely-accepted stereotypes and lead to a breakdown in values that encourage discrimination.

However, this policy encourages the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders.  In the past, when bigots used words offensively, the general public would often start using them as more general terms of abuse and water them down, forcing the bigots to find other words to use abusively, such as when we cycled through "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" as terms for the mentally handicapped.  But today, when bigots use words offensively, we tend to outlaw them altogether, which results in the bigots getting a much larger say in what words are and aren't acceptable.

Also, we often have too much emphasis on the "avoiding offence" aspect of political correctness, as opposed to the "avoiding inciting negative stereotypes of vulnerable groups".  In some cases it is taboo to express opinions that are perfectly reasonable but might offend certain people, by association with related views that are unreasonable, such as the two examples that I provided above relating to road safety and copyright laws.

Of course, sometimes groups of people develop a hatred of a particular word because it is widely used offensively against them, and so it is only natural that if it is used inoffensively, they may misinterpret it and be highly offended.  People do need to be considerate of this, and take some care with their use of language, especially slang, on the internet and around people that they don't know.  However, when people use a word inconsiderately and without thinking, they should only get punished accordingly (in many cases, a mere warning would be the most appropriate) rather than being punished highly disproportionately by association with those who use the word as part of their oppression of certain vulnerable groups. 

And yes, I am seeing a worrying trend towards organisations setting up rules saying that all usage of a particular word should be punished by association with its most offensive usage, and justifying them on the basis, "The rules are right because the rules say so, and the rules say so, because the rules are right."

Instead, I refer readers back to my article on normative bullying and suggest that tackling this problem is the best way of combating discrimination.

Transport part 1- Reducing dependency on cars

Fundamental problem

In the UK, in common with many other parts of the developed (and, increasingly, developing) world, we are too dependent on cars for transport, resulting in pollution and congestion and non-sustainable consumption of resources.  This raises the question, how do we reduce our dependency on cars and move towards a more balanced and sustainable transport system?  My feelings on this issue are rather at odds with the conventional ways of thinking.

I am in the rare position of having a strong environmental/climate change background, and being a non-driver (unable to drive at all due to visual impairment) and often lamenting the lack of good alternatives in our car-dependent society, but at the same time sharing many tendencies of car enthusiasts (e.g. I often enjoy being taken for a ride as a passenger, and watching Top Gear and Formula One racing), so I think, or at least hope, that I should be good at seeing both sides' points of view on these issues.

The advantages of cars

The main advantages of cars are social and recreational, rather than simply getting from A to B.  They are associated with personal freedom and convenience, and the ability to go where you want, when you want, for both drivers and their passengers.  They are particularly useful for people living in areas with inadequate public transport, most especially rural communities, and for some people with mobility problems.  Spontaneous car trips contribute heavily to tourism and the custom received by recreational outlets, again especially in rural areas.  Many also derive some enjoyment from the physical process of driving and/or being driven as a passenger, making travelling from A to B a source of enjoyment in itself, rather than a chore.  Car enthusiasts are provided with a hobby and Top Gear remains one of the most successful TV programmes in the world.

The process of getting from A to B can, in itself, be achieved more efficiently given a sufficiently reliable public transport system, particularly in urban areas, and by walking and cycling over short distances, so I don't subscribe to the "Cars are useful primarily for getting from A to B" philosophy.

The disadvantages of cars

Well-established disadvantages include the issue that they contribute heavily to fossil fuel consumption and pollution of the environment, increase noise levels, and can potentially be lethal, especially when they get into the wrong hands.  However, the main reason why the disadvantages of cars often outweigh the plus points these days is because we have become over-dependent on them.  Many of us view cars as a necessity rather than as a luxury, and there are many people who get no reward from the physical process of driving, and find it stressful and would much rather not drive, but feel that they have to.  Becoming too dependent on cars has resulted in car use escalating at the expense of alternative methods of transport and has resulted in high levels of traffic congestion, which accentuate many of the disadvantages and negate many of the advantages of the private car.  In the UK, this can partly be blamed on poor planning policies in the 1950s/60s/70s when we closed down many of the railways in preparation for becoming a car-based society.  Those who have disabilities that prevent them from driving legally, or don't have the confidence, are often disadvantaged because of the lack of reliable alternatives to the car in our car-based society.

Biased cost-benefit analysis

Many academic studies look at methods of transport only in terms of the "means to an end" benefits of getting from A to B, and overlook their social and recreational advantages.  Most environmental groups are aware of this and advocate putting greater emphasis on the social and recreational benefits of walking, cycling and taking public transport, and I have seen a few Green Party manifestos talking of "factoring in the 'true' social and environmental costs of driving".  They argue that promoting cycling more will be beneficial to society even if it results in a small increase in fatalities.  Up to this point, I am completely with them.

However, I am used to the same groups of people arguing that the social and recreational benefits of cars and driving should be ignored, or even considered as a negative factor.  This can stem from the idea that if an activity is frowned upon, then it is particularly bad if people are deriving enjoyment from it, or the idea that since we want people to use their cars less, it will complicate our argument if we then factor benefits of cars into consideration.  I recall reading one academic study which misleadingly expressed the social/recreational pros and cons of driving as one motorist's personal benefits versus the cumulative negative impacts of all of the cars on the roads.  It is understandable, but leads to considerable anti-car bias, and thereby, promotes policies that are more anti-car than pro-environment, pro-safety or pro-walking/cycling/public transport.

Meanwhile, the work-related benefits of driving are generally overstated, because of the misconception that everything relating to work is essential, for we all need to work (up to a point).  A significant amount of work-related driving (though not all of it) could easily be avoided at little or no cost to anybody, such as through car-share schemes, public transport and teleworking arranagements.

My recommended approach

I believe that we need to go for much the opposite approach, taking steps to reduce our over-dependency on cars, and pushing us towards a culture where cars are primarily viewed as a luxury, rather than a necessity, with public transport being the default for longer-range "A to B" journeys and walking and cycling for shorter journeys, and cars being primarily used for recreational journeys.  Many German towns and cities have managed to get close to this model, but the key is that it requires an integrated public transport system, and good facilities for walking and cycling, and good advertising to raise public awareness of the facilities.  Some work-related car journeys can be cut by car-sharing, use of minibuses, and teleworking arrangements, and we could also do with transporting a higher percentage of our freight by rail.

Another advantage of making car use more of a luxury and more recreation-based is that traffic congestion will end up playing more of a limiting role- if we use cars too much, congestion increases, making driving less enjoyable, resulting in less car use, and less congestion, and we end up with a self-sustaining equilibrium which prevents our roads from becoming excessively congested.  When we are dependent on cars for transport, this equilibrium is harder to achieve as many people feel that they "have" to keep on driving even when the roads become gridlocked.

There will be cultural barriers to this, and some education and advertising will be needed.  One problem that we will have in the UK is that even if we do achieve an integrated public transport system, it may be difficult to encourage the public to widely use it, because of the negative image that public transport currently suffers from.  Another issue is the lazy tendency of some to drive around the corner to the local shops when they could walk there in just 5-10 minutes- again, addressing this will require a cultural shift, but that cultural shift won't be achieved by clamping down against the recreational side of driving.

Thus, when it comes to the "congestion" side of driving, I think that more use of the "carrot", rather than the "stick", is advisable, as the "sticks" have a habit of particularly hitting the aspects of driving that are the most beneficial to society, while the "carrots" are often more likely to succeed in reducing the negatives.  

This may not be the case with the "pollution" side, however, where we may need more tax-based incentivising (both for drivers and car companies) to provide "carrots" to encourage use of more efficient fuels, while implementing "sticks" to penalise those who produce and drive around in gas-guzzlers.  A significant problem in the UK in recent years has been the move towards diesel rather than unleaded petrol, which has been misleadingly presented as saving a lot more on pollution than it actually does, and as a result traffic pollution levels have not fallen as far as expected.  However, we must still be careful not to implement "sticks" that heavily neutralise many of the benefits that cars provide to society.

"Normative" bullying part 2- Gender and relationships

Gender differences- Nature or nurture?

The simple answer to this question is, "both", but a more challenging question is, how much of the observed differences between males and females is nature, and how much is nurture?  I think the "nurture" component has definitely declined since the 1950s, but it is still there, and I believe that the main problem with it is that it often tends to be enforced through "normative" bullying techniques.

A frequent personal experience of mine is that, culturally, men are expected to be X, and women are expected to be Y, but I tend to be a mix of the two.  I tend to be particularly exasperated by contradictory arguments like the following:

"Like it or not, men and women are different.  There is no peer pressure to conform to gender roles- that has died out since the 1950s- there is only pressure not to conform.  Fundamentally, men are X and women are Y, and if, as a man, you aren't X, then it means you probably have something wrong with you and so should be regarded with suspicion, for a civilised society has to have norms/rules and if you don't play by the rules you should be punished.  Most other men are happy to be X, so why can't you just be X like everybody else?  Vive la difference!"

This argument is extremely contradictory, arguing that there is no peer pressure to conform to gender roles, but then saying that if you don't conform to gender roles, you should be punished for being different because "rules are rules" (if that's not a form of peer pressure to conform, what is?)

Examples of cultural differences

In many developed countries, notably the USA and to a lesser extent the UK, it is normal for men's friendships to be based on shared interests, particularly competitive hobbies, and for women's friendships to be based on emotional bonding.  Men are not expected to bond emotionally with people other than close family and men who hug close friends can be regarded with suspicion, whereas women can hug close friends without any worries.  These gender divisions are harmful for both genders, since they make it difficult to find friends who will provide both shared interests and emotional bonding (male friends tend to provide the former and female friends the latter).  The lack of emotional bonding in men's friendships, in particular, tends to result in them being perceived as short-term and disposable.

For men

The norms relating to "Men don't bond emotionally with friends" have no biological basis.  They stem from the way that close friendships involving men were stigmatized during the Victorian era due to the fear of being accused of being homosexual, as there were strong criminal penalties for homosexual men, as Oscar Wilde found out to his great cost, for example.  The stigmatization of emotional bonding in men's friendships relates to the idea that men are not emotionally sensitive, and if they are, they are unnatural and probably have something wrong with them.  This issue has significantly fuelled the recent paranoia over child-molesters in the UK, where every man who behaves inconsistently with his gender role in the vicinity of a child is suspected of wanting to molest the child.  But it is at odds with biological evidence suggesting that about 15-20% of humans, both male and female, are born "highly sensitive".  

I suggest that this is an example of what I call "normative" bullying.  Men who are more "sensitive" than the expected norm end up feeling compelled to hide their sensitive traits, for fear of being socially rejected for being different, and even suspected of wanting to molest children.  In today's culture of "the minority spoiling it for everybody else", when there is a perceived threat to our safety, we look for innocent people to target by association with the likes of rapists.  Homosexual men traditionally used to be the easiest targets, but now that homophobia is becoming recognised as a significant problem, it is becoming easier to focus on "sensitive" men instead as they are not widely recognised as being vulnerable to discrimination.

For women

"Women don't engage in competitive hobbies/interests" does have a limited biological basis, as women tend to be less aggressive and competitive by nature.  However, much of the gender division is still caused by social conditioning.  From an early age, girls are taught that females "grow out" of competitive activities like computer games (especially violent games), chess, ten pin bowling etc., and that females who persist in doing them are acting unfeminine and childish and stooping to the males' level.  Another, related, problem is the patronising, "macho" type of reaction that females get from some males who are strong at such activities, like, "She can't be as good as us- she's female." or "I'm not playing against her because I couldn't stomach being beaten by a female."

I remember cases from my childhood where people applied the rule, "Boys shouldn't hit girls, but it's OK for girls to hit boys" (which is dubious in itself, for while girls are, on average, physically weaker than boys, the rule doesn't take into account the individual-on-individual variations from the average, or the fact that it is possible, up to a point, for weaker people to inflict significant harm on stronger people) and but then decided that it was OK for boys to hit girls who took part in these competitive activities because "they aren't real girls as they do boys' things rather than girls' things".  An extreme case admittedly, but one that strongly highlights the problem.

So, again, a significant reason why many girls don't engage in these activities is because if they do, they will be socially rejected for being different. This is reflected by the fact that once it becomes relatively "normal" for females to do a traditionally male-dominated activity, we usually get a sharp rise in the number of females who take an interest in it, and by the fact that many girls who take up these activities tend to give them up during their teenage years, which is when peer pressure tends to be at its most rampant.

All of the above is strongly relevant to areas where there is a problem with women being under-represented in the workforce- sometimes the above attitudes are quite prevalent, and tend to be accepted without question, such that people (both male and female) bully women out of wanting to be part of them, without even realising it.

I am not a fan of positive discrimination

I am a believer in equality of opportunity, which is not the same thing as equality of attainment.  There are some areas where biological differences between the sexes will result in there being more men than women (or vice versa) succeeding at a particular activity, e.g. men are at an advantage, on average, in activities that require a lot of physical strength.  And we get variations either side of the mean, so Company A may find that most of the best applicants for a job are male, while Company B might find that most of the best applicants for a similar post are female.

I can see that positive discrimination can go some way towards addressing the problems that I described above.  If women are under-represented within a group, and we push to get more women involved, then it will become perceived as relatively "normal" for women to take part, and therefore, less likely that they will be socially rejected for being different, and thus discouraged.  

However, positive discrimination can result in the jobs not going to the best candidates, with inferior candidates getting priority because of, say, their gender and/or skin colour.  It can also result in us unrealistically trying to aim for a 50-50 gender distribution in an organisation, where there may well be a genetic difference that, if we left "nurture" out of the equation, would make it more like 70-30.  These issues put a lot of people off from supporting what is a very important cause.

Once again, the problem that we're dealing with here is normative enforcement of "rules", i.e. the "If it's normal, it's OK, and if it's different, it's not OK" mentality.  I feel that it would be most beneficial to try to tackle this directly.  People should be punished for doing things that are likely to be detrimental, not purely for being different.