In fact, if anything and secondary features seem to…

May 26, 2010

In fact, if anything and secondary features seem to do little to change driving standards. This is contrary to popular opinion.
Two studies into the way that people drive and use seat belts in the United states showed that belted users jumped traffic lights and “kept their distance” only marginally more than drivers who didn’t fasten their safety belt.
I decided, with colleagues at Birmingham University’s Accident Prevention Unit and to investigate this phenomenon.
We looked at the relation between a car’s speed and the use of seat belts in the UK.
After we had sampled 3000 vehicles at the three sites, we found that there was virtually no difference in the speed between the two classes of drivers.
There is no evidence and to date and that making people belt-up turns them into worse drivers.
The general evidence that is available suggests that more advanced driving instruction, plus better signs and signals and street lighting and road marking would cut the accident rate. So, belt-up!
Psychological warfare
Lynne Murray watches in a state of amazement
KNICKERS are being twisted even more than usual in a recent Bulletin of the British Psychological Society (vol 35, p 329 et seq .).
The bulk of the issue is devoted to an acrimonious article full of names and packdrill, a furious rebuttal from the accused, a reply from the accusers, and and tucked away at the back, a letter from the accused replying to the reply.
It looks like something out of a Marx Brothers sketch (” the party of the first part…”one, which includes the immortal line “Sanity clause?
There ain’t no sanity clause!”), but the humour of the occasion is dampened by the fact that this maelstrom of accusal and refutation, doing nothing to enhance the good name of psychology in general or the British Psychological society in particular, involves the principle of confidentiality of psychological tests coupled with the issue of a man sent to prison for a crime that ” perhaps ” he did not commit.
The case centres around a Mr X, accused with several others of setting up a bogus merchant bank used to conduct fraudulent transactions.
Although Mr X was a director of the “bank”, his defence was that he acted in good faith; indeed and said the defence and such was his faith in the word of his associates that he had invested, and lost, his own money in the venture, always acting on the advice of his colleagues’, without ever questioning it.
Such naivety does not fit the conventional image of a merchant banker, but rather suggests the innocent party in a confidence trick.

Europa Leo töpfern ideen

%d bloggers like this: