‘Motonormativity’: Britons more accepting of driving-related risk (hTe Graunida)

NotNigel wrote:

Where's perce with one of his light hearted anecdotes..?

If he's any sense out on the bike where I should be on my day off except it's snowing and I've been grounded. 

Awavey wrote:

Well I thought Walkers previous studies were hopelessly flawed, so I've no faith this one is any better. For a start I'd argue the questions if they are as the gruaniad have documented, are leading questions, and how a person answers depends wholly on their interpretation not necessarily their view that its safer to breath exhaust fumes than cigarette smoke. I also dont think anyone one interprets belongings left on a street in the same way as a locked car with a burglar alarm left on a street.

I don't understand why you think they are leading questions.

The questions themselves are less important than the very clear distinction between motor-related issues and non-motor-related issues. However, I would agree that the car/property on the street is probably the poorest example as cars are generally worth a lot more than other items of property, although it does raise the question of why it is normalised to leave private cars on public roads.

I'd consider the smoking/pollution question to be directly comparable and clearly shows how thinking about traffic/cars is skewed.

They're leading questions because you cant just change a few words in a question and have it result in a comparable set of answers between question a and b, cigarette fumes are not meaningfully comparable to car fumes, and any answer people give maybe influenced wholly on whether they're pro or anti smoking, pro or anti car anyway.

Properly done surveys go to quite long lengths to land on question wordings so as not to unduly influence the person answering and will often ask you multiple times on the same subject but in a question phrased differently to test the limits of your answers and that its a consistent view you are giving

For instance if I posed a question of would you stand on an operational nuclear reactor that's emitting radiation, or would you stand in field next to a wind turbine. That the majority will answer always in favour of the wind turbine doesnt mean "the public supports wind over nuclear", it's simply I've phrased a leading question based on the prejudices and assumptions of people against a topic so as to ensure I get the right conclusions.

Asking people if they left personal property in the street, is not equivalent to a car being left parked in the street. Why not pick house instead, because we know the house would end up the same proportions of wanting police involvement as the car which then undermines the conclusion of the study as being autocentric.

Awavey wrote:

They're leading questions because you cant just change a few words in a question and have it result in a comparable set of answers between question a and b, cigarette fumes are not meaningfully comparable to car fumes, and any answer people give maybe influenced wholly on whether they're pro or anti smoking, pro or anti car anyway. Properly done surveys go to quite long lengths to land on question wordings so as not to unduly influence the person answering and will often ask you multiple times on the same subject but in a question phrased differently to test the limits of your answers and that its a consistent view you are giving For instance if I posed a question of would you stand on an operational nuclear reactor that's emitting radiation, or would you stand in field next to a wind turbine. That the majority will answer always in favour of the wind turbine doesnt mean "the public supports wind over nuclear", it's simply I've phrased a leading question based on the prejudices and assumptions of people against a topic so as to ensure I get the right conclusions. Asking people if they left personal property in the street, is not equivalent to a car being left parked in the street. Why not pick house instead, because we know the house would end up the same proportions of wanting police involvement as the car which then undermines the conclusion of the study as being autocentric.

I don't see how cigarette fumes aren't comparable to car fumes although cigarette fumes are a lot easier to avoid. I think the questions need to be comparing similar outcomes and apart from the property one, I think they're similar comparisons.

This isn't about trying to determine if people are for or against cars, but seeing how biased people are when questions concern motoring vs similar non-motoring questions are posed.

I don't think it'd be useful to compare house burglary with car theft as cars are left in public areas whereas houses are mostly on private ground, and the very nature of a house puts a "private" boundary around things. I'd agree that that question is a poor choice - maybe he should have gone with a comparison of parked bikes blocking a pavement vs a parked car blocking a pavement.

I might be on my own on this one, but I generally think car alarms are pointless and anti-social. Even if it's your own alarm going off I don't think anyone's first thought is that their car is being nicked, but that the alarm is on the blink.

Also, and this will be a very unpopular opinion, I think cars being nicked is generally less important than a lot of other belongings despite the expense. They are insured, you can get another one. Hell yes it's inconvenient but it generally isn't the end of the world.

yep but its not a very scientific method, thats all, and of course the study gets pushed as "A study has shown..." and I would say no it hasnt.

Awavey wrote:

yep but its not a very scientific method, thats all, and of course the study gets pushed as "A study has shown..." and I would say no it hasnt.

I think it could be improved by altering the questions to make the alternatives have similar outcomes (I'm thinking of the property left in public one) and maybe have a variety of word substitutions, so that there's a baseline of people's reactions to other topics too. e.g. "Risk is a natural part of squirrel wrangling, and anybody squirrel wrangling has to accept that they could be seriously injured".
 

Even with the minor tinkering many motorists and their lobbyists wring their hands in dismay with claims of a "war on the motorist", "infringement of freedom", "cash raising" ad nauseum. It never crosses their mind that current restrictions are being enforced or new ones introduced due to their irresponsible behaviour behind the wheel. 

I dread the day everyone is setting off at roundabouts in cars that do 0-60 in 2 seconds...

My first car could go up to 120. Trouble is we lived at 160.

Just made me choke on my tea. 

Problem is that they will be driven by pedal to the floor and will get drivers into trouble so much quicker.  It would be so easy to electronically limit max speed and acceleration, but that will never be accepted.  I have to confess that owning a sports car  I would not want to be limited, but logically that would be a sensible solution! Certainly the correct solution when I'm on bike. That is of course the difficult conundrum. 

I did read at the end of last year mercedes were offering a USA upgrade for faster acceleration on their subscription service

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23474969/mercedes-car-subscription-f...

No mention of training, higher level of licence for this.

SlowOldSteve wrote:

It would be so easy to electronically limit max speed and acceleration, but that will never be accepted. 

All the sort of stuff that could be easily done and would reduce danger, without impeding all the wonderful benefits that Martin says cars bring us.  And, what is more, exactly the sort of thing that is required for other forms of transport (e-bikes and e-scooters).  But no, we don't treat motor cars differently for no good reason.

Limiting EV acceleration would need to be done by government legislation, but I can see this happening, not just for safety, but for environmental reasons. In the same way some appliances have been power capped (eu vacuume cleaner regs for example).

Emission regulations were a bit of a barrier to mass-producing powerful petrol/diesel vehicles. I'm not sure there are any downsides to limiting the peak power of an EV, bar its cost price and insurance premium.

peted76 wrote:

What an interesting article, 'normativity' - every day is a school day.

Martin73, in what could be described as his magnum opus, sticking up for car drivers again and finding his own way to troll an article which isn't even on this site.. As well as totally misinterpreting/misdirecting the analogy used in a weak attempt to dupe us into talking about car ownership, which was comparing 'smoking' to 'car fumes' and use, not car ownership and the rights thereof.

Just a PBU doing what a PBU does