Blame the driver, not the sat nav, for car accidents

Sue, Alan! Take your Merc Dealer to the Small Claims Court. This is a clear case of nor being fit for purpose (though not dangerous). Then use the compensation (because yours is an integrated satnav and you need the other functions) to buy a reliable portable satnav like TomTom or Garmin. I know you lose that big screen, but you get much cheaper updates and you can use it in pedestrian streets, too, or on your bike (but stop to consult it).

Sorry you have to know your own limitations and drive within them – or you are a dangerous driver to other drivers.

There are no excuses – except possibly catastrophic sudden failure of your car – and that is very rare. I’ve never used a sat nav .and never had a crash (they are not accidents) I do have a sat nav – bought it several years ago -. but decided it was unsafe to use.

Interesting I do not ever read a map on the move – First I plan the route thoroughly using maps – make a route list – If I ever need to refresh my memory I stop the car to check.

Quite right, Richard. Your first comment echoes my last. How often, though, do you stop on a no-stopping dual carriageway to recheck your directions? I suspect that you try to memorize them, and if you can’t, pull off onto a cross road to stop. That occasionally happened to me.

My satnav makes this unnecessary without distracting my concentration, though I do tend to switch it on only when I need it most because, like you, I read maps well and prefer my own planning to the satnav’s. And I do plan well as I drive: advanced training makes it difficult to do otherwise without a feeling of dread.

Most people do not have this high level of skills and find a satnav a boon. It also makes them safer because if you are poor at navigating and try to do it as you drive, this is a recipe for disaster; ie, it causes enough accidents to be significant. I suspect that the safety problem for most people is that the genuinely don’t know their own limitations, having never tested them, and are overoptimistic.

For example, at least a third of drivers will go dangerously fast in a crowded urban area, having underestimated both the hazards and their stopping distance; when the inevitable happens, it’s a big incident, not a small one. And by fast, I might mean 20mph. And three-quarters of drink-drivers think that they are safer after ‘a few’, despite the huge mass of evidence proving them to be very wrong.

Maybe what we need is to prove all this to them; the problem is that most drivers don’t see a problem and won’t take the time. This who do an advanced ‘test drive’ are usually shocked by the results, but the majority of drivers will never get even to this point. More driver education is needed, maybe by shock adverts (but believable ones) as they did in the ’70s. Without a change in public opinion, more and better driver training is politically impossible (ie, unpopular). So we get back to this: Dave Evans, you’re right!

David – I never knowingly break the law so never stop on double yellow lines it is illegal. Second in all honesty my route list is comprehensive as I have studied the map closely and the aid memoir of writing it down increases the probability of remembering it. accurately and very rarely do I ever have to stop – and I always stop safely. The only time I do is usually because there is road works or a new one way street but then there are road signs to direct me around safely which make a sat nav unnecessary .

From what I’ve learned from friends (and driving with them) is sat navs engender a totally unjustified sense of confidence and they are often inaccurate (the cause of the crashes). So far I’ve never had to use one in isolation – I always use pre-planning by map as a backup.frankly I’m not too impressed with them.

I agree that sat navs may make some feel more confident but far too many follow them slavishly.

The whole point of this conversation is that studies show sat navs cause accidents and I contend the fault is with the driver not the sat nav – simple. How can drivers be safer if the sat navs cause the crashes??

The fact there are 1000’s of incompetent drivers simply means they shouldn’t drive without thought as so many do. I suggest that more stringent testing possibly including use of sat navs and public awareness is required but frankly it will not make a difference.as too many are naturally incompetent.

Maybe there should be stiff fines or increases in insurance premiums for sat nav induced crashes..

I always used to do as you do, Richard, until I tried out a satnav – and loved it for its help in allowing me to keep my focus on my driving, while still navigating. Satnavs don’t cause accidents – people do. And satnavs are no different to any other kind of distraction if they are taking your attention from hazards – you need to refocus on your surroundings immediately.

I actually suspect that satnavs enhance safety for all users, because less competent drivers can keep road focus better when the satnav is guiding direction that when they’re trying to navigate by map, road sign or street name while still driving. In other words, a poor driver is safer navigating by satnav than in other ways.

Not everyone is as responsible as you, Richard. And I reckon that if you tried using your satnav as it was meant to be used – as an adjunct – then it would improve your own safety, too.

I have to agree with you, Em. And I think that accidents ascribed to a satnav are actually caused by everything but.

What a satnav – badly programmed or inaccurate – can do, though, is to lead you inappropriately where you should not go. And if you are then so surprised at, for example, finding yourself going the wrong way up a one-way-street, that you crash into an oncoming car, then of course it’s the satnav’s fault! Otherwise it might be yours!

And if you’re peering at the screen, which might be clearer to understand, and overshoot a junction and hit another vehicle: why, the satnav’s to blame! It should have been clearer!

So I agree with you. The survey is about the way that people ascribe blame in an incident, not about the actual cause. Maybe this is rich research ground for a behavioural psychologist!

Since lamp posts and stationary cars have been blamed for causing accidents perhaps the sat nav could be exonerated.

Why is it that every time we have a topic related to motoring, some people get worked up and critical of other drivers. One of the best ways to keep our roads safe is to be patient and tolerant.

I find that my sat nav encourages me to drive more slowly. Without it, I often assume I will arrive late for a meeting but the sat nav generally shows that I will arrive in good time. It also provides confirmation of speed limits in between signs.

@David. Isn’t this another example of a well-understood human trait? We tend to act first and try to rationalize/justify our decision second, even when it doesn’t make a lot of sense: “I ran into the wall/stream/parked car, because the sat nav told me to drive down here!”

@Wavechange. It’s not too surprising that some people get worked up. These studies are written primarily to whip up public frenzy and get the sponsor’s name in the media. Look at some of the emotive words used in the press release:

“staggering”,
“ever-increasing”,
“shocking”,
“overwhelming” and
“alarming”!

Hardly words you would use in a rational debate about the merits of satellite navigation.

And I’m with you on this. If I’m driving to an appointment some distance away I will set the sat nav, even if I know the way. I can pace my journey better – often enabling me to cruise at a low motorway speed. And it gives me plenty of warning before a turn-off is even signposted and exactly what the layout is going to be.

“OK, it’s only 2 miles to go and I’ve plenty of time; hold back before this stream of traffic and avoid having to cut in to turn left at the roundabout.” I certainly wouldn’t drive in Paris or London without one!

‘Incredible’ 🙂

You will never get a job in popular journalism, Em, if you reject the language – so stick around here and carry on dispensing down-to-earth common sense.

There is a new Conversation about the distractions of technology in cars, David.
https://conversation.which.co.uk/transport-travel/distracting-in-car-technology-infotainment-systems-car-safety/

At least passengers may shut up if they see the driver has to cope with a difficult situation. For the rest, an ejector seat might be a useful safety feature. 🙂

David and Wavechange – I agree with you both it is not safe to use a phone whilst driving. Even before the days of mobiles, I would rarely talk to a passenger, or at least would only do so at the risk of cutting them off and appearing rude, where necessary. It is simply not possible for the human brain to talk or actively listen and not be distracted from driving to the highest possible standard.

But given the government have decided that “hands-free” phone use is legal, I do feel it is more productive to prosecute the willing and persistent offenders – the commercial drivers and luxury car owners who simply can’t be bothered to install or use their hands-free equipment.

In my own defence I would normally only use my (hands-free) phone so my passenger can make or take a call with me listening in.

And how is the automatic detection of phoning whilst moving supposed to work? Is no-one going to be permitted to use a mobile phone whilst on the move, whether as a passenger in a vehicle or even walking?

It’s before my time, but I believe that our armed forces were issued cigarettes during wartime. I’m not sure that governments (of any party) are always capable of making sensible decisions.

Let’s leave it there before I am told off for taking a Conversation off-topic. 🙂

A bit of wishful thinking, that ‘phoning detection’! The technology to make it work is almost with us – the latest cheapish cameras have face detection, smile detection, etc. and adding ‘hand up at ear’ would be little more. So already existing cameras could feed likely images with matched numberplate shots to a control centre, which would match this with the owner of the vehicle and registered phones, then check whether a call was being made at the time. But this would need coordinating of several agencies’ records and probably be even less popular than MI5 having the ability to check who everyone was emailing! We’d need a photo of everyone available, a whole new industry of manual checking and putting all this together, then a new system to handle the litigation. Hey! Maybe we should do it – unemployment would go down!

@Wavechange – You said leave it there, but I think there is an even better (on-topic) example of governments not making sensible decisions about road safety.

I still remember an educated and talented female friend, who died needlessly at the age of 19 in a 30 mph car crash. No other vehicle was involved, but she was not wearing her seatbelt, as Parliament continued to dither on about “personal liberty”, being “thrown clear”, and other such nonsense.

Some years later (fortunately for me) I had already made up my own mind about the merits of seat belts, and I was saved from severe injury or death in a 50 mph collision with another vehicle that failed to stop at a Give Way. Apart from some chest compression I walked way without any injury, although both cars were written off.

Parliament eventually got its Act together, but I do wonder how many thousands of motorists were killed as a direct result of HM Government’s inaction on seatbelt wearing. And shame on the MPs concerned, for allowing self-interest, prejudice and stupidity to prevail for so long.

Thanks for trying to take us back on topic, Em. Sometimes governments get it right and I am delighted to see that plans to have a two year MOT have been abandoned.

The government could help with satnavs by insisting that the purchase costs includes updates of maps and speed limits, which could be a worthwhile safety feature.

I’m glad you survived your ordeal. I’m still suffering the effects of an accident caused by a careless driver in the 1970s.. Compensation is no recompense for permanent injury.

Could be either, amoeba!

If the driver has brain engaged on the task of driving, the satnav takes no responsibility even when it’s showing incorrect data. But if the driver feels that the machine must be totally trusted, then he/she has passed over some of the responsibility to the people who keep the satnav up to date. Currently, the law does not permit this abrogation of responsibility.

This will certainly become a ‘hot potato’ in the next decade, as self-driving cars come into use. I suspect that lawyers will get very fat arguing both sides in a court case where a self-driving car is in collision with a manually-controlled one. That’s why self-driving cars will have full video recording as well as the black box recorder that insurance companies are now fitting into cars to provide charging data on place, time, speed, orientation, acceleration, etc., second by second.