Hey all,
I'm a student doing a study on young drivers aged 18-23 on the subject of risky behaviour.
I'd really appreciate it if you filled out this quick survey for me, so I can do some awesome science and figure out whether we are a nation of psychopaths driving ourselves to oblivion.
Only takes about 5 minutes.
Click the following link to start: www.my3q.com/go.php?url=pippinz/76016
Cheers!
|
|
OK'd by HJ for general consumption.
|
|
|
We might be a nation of idiots; but you can't have a nation wholly composed of psychopaths. Who would they have to protect?
They occur only in tiny percentages; maybe only 0.5% of the UK population - although other countries/ethnic groups may have found it evolutionally advantageous to breed a higher percentage.
|
I appreciate the stats on psychopathy, Screwloose (a very appropriate username, I must say).
I am not literally studying psychopathic behaviour, that was simply hyperbole on my part to reflect on the fact that generally, people have a rather low opinion of others' driving ability when driving (leading to a lack of empathy and possibly, greater risk taking behaviour, which can be partially symptomatic of mild psychopathy). My study is actually intended to investigate risk taking behaviour of young motorists in general, however you raise an interesting point that it would be exceptionally difficult to manage risk taking behaviour in those who genuinely believe that they do not represent a risk to other road users and pedestrians.
If the level of mental illness that could affect perception of risk genuinely is at around 0.5% of the population, then that represents quite a significant number of people and would definitely warrant a whole study of its own to investigate that issue.
The scope of this study, however, is to get a grasp of risk taking perceptions in young people in general, with a view to seeing how these perceptions meet with the efficacy of current strategies to control such behaviour (such as the Think! campaign).
|
I'm not sure that I'd agree with your premise that psychopaths are mentally ill. They're born wired completely differently to the mass of the population and are instinctively driven to protect the breeding group - often working together using their naturally-endowed characteristics. Their lack of empathy is an essential tool when forced to work in circumstances, or to undertake tasks, that would render most paralysed with horror.
Only when one goes rogue do they come to general attention - and those cases shape the public's perception of a very misunderstood group. Everyone remembers Hannibal; but hardly anyone noticed that there were four psychopaths, quite brilliantly written and portrayed, in the leading characters of The Silence of the Lambs.
Anyway; back on the topic. Through inexperience, even level-headed and sober young men consider themselves immortal; they take risks to "prove themselves," to impress girls - and because it's fun. Most of those factors can be put down to the effects of testosterone.
I doubt that there's anything socially-acceptable that can be done to counteract such a powerful hormone; so maybe the focus should move to improving their hazard perception and vehicle-handling skills as the most cost-effective means of helping them survive this hazardous period. Education, in place of prohibition and, ineffective, exhortation.
|
Anyway; back on the topic. Through inexperience, even level-headed and sober young men consider themselves immortal; they take risks to "prove themselves," to impress girls - and because it's fun. Most of those factors can be put down to the effects of testosterone.
Mostly tru although there is something else at work here as well. What is risk? As a teen driver I had no perception or thought of risk till it bit me.
|
|
|
|
stopped at question 2
no option reflects my opinions on the question.
I am pro road policing, anti cameras and humps.
|
"I appreciate the stats on psychopathy, Screwloose (a very appropriate username, I must say)."
Professor Screwloose can read all 24,000 fault codes of the human mind, without the patient even stepping out of the car.
;)
|
|
|
The question asks whether active management or passive management are more influential in you choosing to drive safely.
Now whether you have a preference over each management technique does not necessarily preclude the question. We are really trying to ascertain whether people are more influenced on the road by "hard" or "soft" techniques of behaviour control.
For example, I might dislike speed cameras because I perceive them to be a distraction, but in them making me reduce my speed I may well be driving safer, even if my perceptions are incorrect.
If your line of argument is that you genuinely feel that cameras and bumps decrease your safety, but policing increases it, then you are obliged to take a measured estimate as to whether this results in an average reduction or increase in the safety of your driving behaviour.
We're not necessarily looking at how well you can guess the empirically recorded efficacy of each management technique - rather, we're interested in your own personal perceptions.
Hope this clears things up for you.
|
If your line of argument is that you genuinely feel that cameras and bumps decrease your safety but policing increases it then you are obliged to take a measured estimate as to whether this results in an average reduction or increase in the safety of your driving behaviour.
Obliged by whom ?.
If a survey question is phrased in such a way that the response forces me to express support for something I do not wish to support, it goes, metaphorically, in the bin and the subsequent questions remain unread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you accept answers from drivers over 23 won't this give erroneous statistics, or should those in this forum who are over 23 not take part?
|
I am placing complete trust in people to eliminate themselves from the survey if they do not meet the requirements of the study :)
There's obviously going to be a margin of error for this, and the odd sabotaged entry, but I vet each one of the submitted forms for any massive deviations, so it should result in some level of validity.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the survey (I am not eligible to take part) but answering the question, I have always presumed that each road user takes his/her own intrinsic degree of risk, which can be modified by experience, or most of all by suffering an accident - whether or not caused by their own risk-taking. That is why I can't accept the suggestion that changing to a faster car with better brakes makes driving safer: "you can get out of trouble better", forgetting about getting into it to begin with.
|
I'm wondering whether any 18-23 year olds taking part here (..and assuming only the 18-23 group will do the survey..) will actually be representative of the age group you're studying?
I say that because, the people who (it seems from my reading & posting over the past 2-3 years) participate here are generally of the more level-headed type. I'd wager your results here will reflect a lower level of 'psychopathy' than say, would a forum devoted to modifying 10year old hatchbacks or a site name signifying more anarchistic interests & participant profiles.
|
I'm in my 50's. I've always been a careful and, I think, sensible driver. I was never a boy racer.
We are all risk-takers every time we take a vehicle on the road, whether it be a 44-tonne artic, a modded Subaru Imprezza or a pedal cycle. Good driving is about minimising the risks while still making reasonable progress within the law and other rules of the road.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 26/08/2008 at 13:56
|
Which of these factors do you consider to be the most influential in you choosing to drive safer?
Active Management (Police, speed cameras, speed humps etc)
Passive Management ("Slow down" road signs, Think! road safety advertising etc)
Firstly, there are only two factors listed, so the question should ask which is the more influential. Secondly, safer is an adjective, not really an adverb. "More safely" would read much better.
|
Late teens psychopath no, immortal yes.
|
|
|
|
