[brooksby]

‘Motonormativity’: Britons more accepting of driving-related risk
Allowance made for dangers that would not be accepted in other parts of life, finds study with potentially major policy implications

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/17/motonormativity-britons-more-accepting-driving-related-risk

Topic

[hawkinspeter]

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”.
 

[Awavey]

yep but its not a very

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.

[brooksby]

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

I might be on my own on this one, but I generally think car alarms are pointless and anti-social.

IAF, many cars are pointless and anti-social… 

[brooksby]

Walker says he did it on

Walker says he did it on purpose – just change the absolute minimum from ‘car’ to ‘not-car’ in each question, just to see what happens.

[HoarseMann]

Limiting EV acceleration

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.

[Steve K]

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.

[Hirsute]

I did read at the end of last

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-faster-acceleration-feature-price

 

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

[Steve K]

As Martin says, it’s only

As Martin says, it’s only cyclists who complain about deaths on our roads, and pedestrians are perfectly happy with the current level of deaths and injuries.

In other news, did anyone see this article from last week? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/baby-killed-car-parents-road-deaths-louis-thorold-foundation

[giff77]

Just made me choke on my tea.

Just made me choke on my tea. 

[giff77]

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. 

[SlowOldSteve]

Problem is that they will be

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. 

[perce]

My first car could go up to

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

 

[NotNigel]

Where’s perce with one of his

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

[hawkinspeter]

Awavey wrote:

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.

[Awavey]

They’re leading questions
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.

[Author]

Replies