|
I expect people using this site want to see driving as safe and pleasurable as possible. There are a number of organisations working to do this but can I suggest having a look at www.drivesafe-staysafe . Hopefully, with support, it will make a contribution to improving road travel.
|
I had a look scot. Thanks, but it's the usual safety-organization crap advocating systematic paranoia and compulsory mimsing. Not my idea of safe pleasurable driving, far from it.
Where do these carphounds get their money? From silly old women I reckon. And the government perhaps. It could be better used.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 29 Dec 13 at 23:13
|
|
Thanks for taking the time. I think driving standards are not taken seriously enough in this country. Better education I believe would make more difference than revenue raising punishments. To the best of my knowledge no funding for road safety organisations such as this comes from the government. It is unfair to be so dismissive with reference to, 'silly old women'. We all are entitled to our viewpoints and surely by discussion can find ways to make driving more pleasurable and safer for all.
|
" I think driving standards are not taken seriously enough in this country."
Really? Cos statistically we're close to the top in Europe regarding lowest road fatalities.
Just watch those Road Wars programmes. 99% of those articles concern a druggie, car thieves or a young boy racer driving like a prick at 11pm.
Try spending a few months driving around Europe and you'll realise that "driving more pleasurable and safer for all" happens in the UK.
|
Scot's right though, how many people actually do anything to improve their driving once they have passed?
Yes our road deaths are about the lowest in the world, but there are stil plenty of costly accidents and aggro. So no need for pathetic speed limits and other nanny measures.
Quite a few here will have done IAM/RoSPA or have a copy of Roadcraft. Or even the Highway Code. That would be more use than yet another group of hand wringers abusing charitable status.
|
What advanced driver training and tests have you done since your basic driving test Scot? Pass Plus, Motorway lessons, IAM, PSV, HGV?
Far more use than yet another charity whose funds go where?
|
This says it all for me
'Birmingham-based DriveSafe has welcomed the launch today (October 21) of a public consultation process by Birmingham City Council to set a 20mph speed limit on 90% of the city’s roads'.
20mph on 90% of a large city's roads???
Give it 5 years and they'll want 15mph... and what then?
Totally ridiculous. Concentrating on one small part of a very big picture and showing a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
|
>> 20mph on 90% of a large city's roads???
>>
>> Give it 5 years and they'll want 15mph... and what then?
>>
Looks about right to me. 10% are trunk roads and major thoroughfares. Much of the rest are like this goo.gl/maps/FbYQL (Harborne) where 15, never mind 20, would be an achievement.
|
|
Unfortunately this has drifted towards the we are not as bad as other places. That is not relevant. Anyone who drives in this country will regularly see poor driving. That accidents are avoided is often due to good luck. How to improve things here is what matters. If enough people had done IAM/RoSPA then no other organisations would be of any value. Why make it either/or ? surely anything which can help should be welcome. Things are not as good as they could be : e.g roads, skills, attitudes and enforcement. Finally, how are they 'abusing charitable status' ?
|
|
In response to OldNavy I have passed my IAM and maintained membership. If people are satisfied that people being killed or injured is not a major problem ( unless of course it involves them suffering ) then it is a waste of time trying to raise awareness. Incidentally, I sometimes wonder what is so incredibly important for people to save a few minutes by driving as fast as possible, ignoring potential risks.
|
>> Incidentally, I sometimes wonder what is so incredibly important for people to save
>> a few minutes by driving as fast as possible, ignoring potential risks.
If people drove as fast as possible ignoring potential risks, there would be carnage on the roads. Clearly, as there isn't, they don't.
Charities are there to fulfill a social or human rights need. As we have one of the lowest casually rates in the world (based on cars, and miles driven) clearly there is no social or human rights need, so they should not be given a charitable status.
edit, and I sat my DVLA taxi test three years ago, and passed with one minor and been on several company funded enhanced driving courses.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 30 Dec 13 at 12:25
|
>> Charities are there to fulfil a social or human rights need. As we have one
>> of the lowest casually rates in the world (based on cars, and miles driven) clearly
>> there is no social or human rights need, so they should not be given a
>> charitable status.
>>
Definition somewhat wider than you suggest:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/section/3/enacted
|
>> Finally, how are they 'abusing charitable status' ?
It's a hobby horse of mine. Charities get tax breaks, but often are mainly just activists who are perfectly free to make their case, but shouldn't IMO be subsidised by the tax payer. That's before you start on the ones that appear to be run for the wages to the people who run them or do the fundraising.
The point about UK being at the top of the league for road deaths is that the benefit/cost of many measures directed at improving KSIs is virtually nil. Minuscule or unmeasurable improvements are bought only by massive cost and inconvenience, and mass penalising of essentially well behaved and largely considerate drivers.
Yet we only have to use our eyes to see thoroughly incompetent driving all around us. The reason it doesn't result in wholesale slaughter is largely that we 'drive around' it - we know intuitively that the car approaching on a roundabout with its right indicator on (which should be discouraged on roundabouts BTW) is likely to come across us to take the next exit, or annoyingly to take the one we are emerging from.
It's pretty obvious that an improvement in driving standards is the biggest opportunity left, and would be more productive than ever-increasing restrictions that mostly go to create congestion, frustration and deadweight penalising of people who were largely behaving themselves anyway.
|
>> It's pretty obvious that an improvement in driving standards is the biggest opportunity left, and
>> would be more productive than ever-increasing restrictions
And it could be achieved, at no cost to the public purse, by making the driving test much much harder.
|
"with its right indicator on (which should be discouraged on roundabouts BTW) "
An interesting comment. I must say my practice would be, if taking the third exit or performing a full circle, would be to indicate right on the approach to the roundabout and maintain the right signal until just before the desired exit when I would signal left. Am I wrong? Do you switch off your indicator when on the circuit?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 31 Dec 13 at 10:38
|
>>
>> An interesting comment. I must say my practice would be, if taking the third exit
>> or performing a full circle, would be to indicate right on the approach to the
>> roundabout and maintain the right signal until just before the desired exit when I would
>> signal left. Am I wrong? Do you switch off your indicator when on the circuit?
>>
The IAM used to teach that the only indicator needed on a roundabout was the left on exit, the right being unnecessary as it should be assumed that every vehicle was continuing to circle till they indicated to leave. That to me was a sensible system but they changed it to come into line with the DSA (Then then Dept of Transport), the body responsible for driving standards whose chosen methods of roadcraft sometimes leave a lot to be desired.
|
|
So you would advocate signalling right on the approach, turning off the indicator on the circuit and signalling left when leaving?
|
>> So you would advocate signalling right on the approach, turning off the indicator on the
>> circuit and signalling left when leaving?
That gets my vote. The right indication on approach can give useful information to those following and presage your lane change if applicable. But once on the roundabout, it serves no purpose because anybody you are approaching usually has no idea where you joined.
The only 'rule' is to signal when, and in a manner that, it will be helpful those around you.
|
|
I take your point but the turning off of the indicator as you enter the roundabout might possibly confuse the car behind who might now be expecting your to proceed straight across. i.e the second exit. Don't really see that leaving the right indicator on (in line with the Highway Code) until the desired exit give rise to any confusion.
|
>> So you would advocate signalling right on the approach, turning off the indicator on the
>> circuit and signalling left when leaving?
>>
Personally, no. I'd advocate no signal at all on approach (Unless taking the first exit) and treating the roundabout like it was a straight road, only signalling when approaching the next left (Your exit).
|
|
So the Highway Code is wrong?
|
>> So the Highway Code is wrong?
>>
No, that's just the accepted way of doing things. But I believe exit signal only is a better way, and as I pointed out earlier on so did the IAM until they decided being out of step with the DoT would only lead to confusion.
|
|
Yep, best we all do the same thing. IAM does talk a lot of rubbish at times. Shame a lot of drivers don't bother with signals at all.
|
so you're leaving a roundabout by the third exit, there are pedestrians waiting to walk across the second, they can just stand and wait ?
nice weather for it....
|
I suspect a majority of drivers don't even think of pedestrians as road users who might be interested in their signals. But even as a driver, I appreciate a right signal from a vehicle joining from diametrically opposite and before me, as a confirmation that it'll be crossing my path and I'll have to wait. How the IAM sees that as a bad thing I don't know.
There is, of course, a previous - and, fortunately, fading - generation of drivers that will signal right on joining a roundabout and then go straight on. In fact, it's a driving fault I thought had disappeared, until I moved to this neighbourhood of family houses occupied by pensioners - who are still at it with a vengeance.
|
If I am going straight ahead at a four-way roundabout I don't signal. If turning left or right I signal accordingly. On very large roundabouts with multiple exits I might signal left before my chosen exit if necessary. Sometimes when a lane-change on a roundabout is necessary one can signal for that too. Depends on the place.
However drivers are so inconsistent (and sometimes staggeringly idiotic) in their signalling for roundabouts that it's a good idea to suspect all other vehicles of planning to do the worst possible thing. It may slow you down a bit but it keeps things calm.
|
I would have to disagree with your practice of only signalling left on exit "if necessary' on very large roundabouts. Surely it is good practice to always signal left prior to leaving the circuit.
The rules for signalling at roundabouts are clearly spelled out in the HC. The lack of clear signalling at roundabouts proves that many have never read the thing.
|
>> Surely it is good practice to always signal left prior to leaving the circuit.
Moot point. Doesn't the IAM mark people down for signalling when there's no one to see the signal? However I am more of your opinion than the IAM's. There's no harm in an unnecessary signal, but there may be in omitting a necessary one. So I often signal when I don't need to. But not always.
|
Well I guess I would agree that if the roundabout is totally empty and there are no approaching cars on any of the roads and there are no pedestrians attempting to cross the roads then there is no need to signal. Doesn't arise that often though even in rural Norfolk.
|
>> Well I guess I would agree that if the roundabout is totally empty and there
>> are no approaching cars on any of the roads and there are no pedestrians attempting
>> to cross the roads then there is no need to signal. Doesn't arise that often
>> though even in rural Norfolk.
No roundabouts in Rural Norfolk, or pedestrians.
|
"Doesn't the IAM mark people down for signalling when there's no one to see the signal?"
I've heard this one before - and it strikes me as daft.
If drivers just got into the habit of doing the right thing all the time it would help. Not signalling when there's no-one around means another conscious decision has to be made - not to signal.
What happens at the moment is that most people's default mode is "not signalling", except when it's really necessary (in their view), which they may or may not actually get round to doing. The result is totally haphazard.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 14:46
|
Not daft really. If you are certain there is no one around to benefit from your signal there is no point in signalling. If you are not sure whether there is anyone about who would benefit from a signal then you should not really be performing the manoeuvre.
I suspect the IAM stance is to encourage people to think when changing direction rather than doing things on autopilot as so many do.
|
>>
>> Not daft really. If you are certain there is no one around to benefit from
>> your signal there is no point in signalling.
I've heard that one too but I must say I think it's rubbish. Never mind what I was taught in the 70s, more recently my son was told by his instructor NOT to signal if there was nobody about - otherwise it could be thought, on a test, that he didn't know what was around him. But why risk there being somebody unseen who might benefit? It's failsafe, and a desirable habit.
|
It 's not really desirable. It has a tendency to lead to complacency - I've signalled therefore I can pull out - no need to look or be certain that no one will be affected by my move.
Would you always indicate - say when you are leaving a deserted motorway? Surely that would indicate a certain lack of faith in your powers of observation.
|
>> It 's not really desirable. It has a tendency to lead to complacency - I've
>> signalled therefore I can pull out - no need to look or be certain that
>> no one will be affected by my move.
You raise a different question entirely. I detest that kind of 'aspirational' signalling which seems more common now than mirror-signal-manoeuvre. The exception would be trying to pull out into a queue of continuous traffic where a signal will attract attention to your plight.
>>
>> Would you always indicate - say when you are leaving a deserted motorway? Surely that
>> would indicate a certain lack of faith in your powers of observation.
No I wouldn't, of course there are exceptions.
I understand Westpig's point too about unthinking habit.
But let's consider the problem. The majority, and I mean the majority, either don't signal at all when there is traffic approaching/following, or signal contemporaneously either with the braking for their manoeuvre or with the manoeuvre itself, or, if they are about to pull out, before even checking behind . In other words, they can't execute signals properly anyway. Which of these is going to be improved by being told they don't need to signal if no one will benefit?
Whenever a right signal appears on a parked car as I approach, I sound a long warning blast to indicate my presence, just in case they really mean it which they almost never do. I doubt if the point ever sinks in.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 16:44
|
"No I wouldn't, of course there are exceptions. "
So your advice would be to always signal unless exceptional circumstances apply - Like being convinced on no one is about to benefit from the signal.
We are in agreement.
|
>>
>>
>> "No I wouldn't, of course there are exceptions. "
>>
>> So your advice would be to always signal unless exceptional circumstances apply - Like being
>> convinced on no one is about to benefit from the signal.
>>
>> We are in agreement.
Exceptions so rare and obvious as not to be worth mentioning.
|
>> But why risk there
>> being somebody unseen who might benefit? It's failsafe, and a desirable habit.
>>
The reason you are taught not to signal unless there's someone there to see it, is to ensure you don't slip into a routine that has you not paying enough attention.
If you turn up each time looking properly to see if there's anyone about (inc predestrians), you are paying attention.
If you turn up and automatically bung the indicator on, you might not be.
|
"I suspect the IAM stance is to encourage people to think when changing direction rather than doing things on autopilot as so many do."
I suspect you're right, and in an ideal world all drivers would be continuously aware of their surroundings.
Ain't gonna happen, though.
So let's be practical. The "mindless signalling automatons" that Z despises would at least get it right most of the time.
|
>> So let's be practical. The "mindless signalling automatons" that Z despises would at least get
>> it right most of the time.
I dont recall saying I despised them, and they have more chance of getting it wrong most of the time if its mindless.
|
"I dont recall saying I despised them..."
You didn't. I drew an inference from the words "mindless... automatons".
|
>> If drivers just got into the habit of doing the right thing all the time
>> it would help. Not signalling when there's no-one around means another conscious decision has to
>> be made - not to signal.
Yes of course not to signal is a valid conscious decision, as is deciding to signal, to whom and for what. If there is no recipient then its clearly a waste of time, and better than becoming a mindless signalling automaton.
|
>> better than becoming a mindless signalling automaton.
Yes, but nevertheless it's better to have signalling as your default mode than not signalling, for the reasons endlessly given.
Something that hasn't been mentioned is the crucial matter of all-round driver awareness. The majority (perhaps) of drivers who don't make consistent, intelligent use of their mirrors and their ability to move their eyes and heads are the ones who keep us all on our toes and in a state of slight paranoia.
I have a great loathing for drivers who signal too late and do things like suddenly braking in the carriageway before signalling themselves into the garage, layby or whatever. Murderous carphounds as bad as the ones who accelerate while being overtaken. I always want to stop them, drag them out of their cars and kick their heads in, but fortunately I'm no good at that sort of thing.
|
>> The rules for signalling at roundabouts are clearly spelled out in the HC. The lack
>> of clear signalling at roundabouts proves that many have never read the thing.
>>
That's why there are so many drivers "think" they are above reproach when they are dangerously wrong, and everyone else has to make allowances for them particularly on roundabouts.
|
>> I suspect a majority of drivers don't even think of pedestrians as road users who
>> might be interested in their signals.
When in pedestrian mode, the last thing I trust is a signal from a driver.
|
>> I suspect a majority of drivers don't even think of pedestrians as road users who
>> might be interested in their signals.
spot on
I met most of them when I walked into town at lunchtime. It was a van driver who watched me start to cross the end of a road before he started to indicate, then grinned as he drove at me, that reminded me of this thread....
|
|
As for pedestrians, I do usually see them and unless I'm going quickly quite often hesitate for them to cross the road, make eye contact and/or wave them on. Some are courteous in return but many just take it as their right. Pedestrians are even more half-witted than drivers, and that's saying something.
|
>> Unfortunately this has drifted towards the we are not as bad as other places. That
>> is not relevant. Anyone who drives in this country will regularly see poor driving. That
>> accidents are avoided is often due to good luck. How to improve things here is
>> what matters.
Yes, all good points...but having the generally law abiding, open minded, conscientious, etc confined to a blanket 20mph throughout 90% of a whole city, regardless of the conditions, time of day etc...is not the way to go.....
....because the real problem i.e. the stolen car/ poorly maintained car/ drunk driver/ near blind and won't admit it...carry on regardless.
There is no credibility whatsoever, none at all... in an organisation that suggests a blanket 20mph limit. 20mph at school times o/s schools...yes.......ditto hospitals and similar......alternate speed limits on motorways in wet weather, like the French...why not? ...Seize cars with bald tyres..yes please...but don't condemn me to ever slower limits regardless of all the prevailing circumstances, the whole system is dumbed down enough as it is.. and that in itself is bad, it has created a generation of driver's that do not think or know how to react in an emergency.
|
"how many people actually do anything to improve their driving once they have passed?"
All of us - practise, practise, practise and learn by example from the guy in front, or the guy in front of him. Most of us do it properly.
|
|
Oh ! I now see why Public Schools have charitable status. Of course it is not a social need trying to reduce death or injury on our roads. It is not most of us who are the concern. However, a dangerous driver can cause death or injury to others. I see too many ( 1 is too many ) drivers in front and behind me driving in ways that would get a booking if a police car was around. A personal wish is to see a great increase in the number of unmarked police cars. That could have an effect.
Last edited by: scot22 on Mon 30 Dec 13 at 12:32
|
>> Oh ! I now see why Public Schools have charitable status.
They shouldn't.
>> not most of us who are the concern. However, a dangerous driver can cause death
>> or injury to others. I see too many ( 1 is too many ) drivers
>> in front and behind me driving in ways that would get a booking if a
>> police car was around.
Indeed, but no charity is going to fix that.
>> A personal wish is to see a great increase in the
>> number of unmarked police cars. That could have an effect.
Indeed it would, however the tax money to pay for it has gone down the drain giving tax relief to charities that shouldn't be.
|
>>Oh ! I now see why Public Schools have charitable status
:)
A whole nother debate there!
I wasn't specifically aiming my rather glib comment at Drivesafe - as I say it's a hobby horse of mine. I can't actually find it on the register of charities, which doesn't mean it isn't one.
|
"how many people actually do anything to improve their driving once they have passed?"
I guess I must be lucky having no penalty points ever in some 50 years...
And no accidents in the past 20 years.. Perhaps mimsing works:-)
|
>> All of us - practise, practise, practise and learn by example from the guy in
>> front, or the guy in front of him. Most of us do it properly.
That's like only learning to cook one thing and leaving it at that. You can get by, but you're not a chef and you're no use to anybody else.
And people learn just as much from bad examples as good ones. Hence all those people who signal before looking in the mirror, or after they have started the manoeuvre, or both at the same time.
|
>> All of us - practise, practise, practise and learn by example from the guy in
>> front, or the guy in front of him. Most of us do it properly.
>>
That just makes you a DIY bodger not a trained skilled driver.
|
"That just makes you a DIY bodger not a trained skilled driver."
But it takes 50 years to practise and learn. A life-time.
Do you want an instructor sitting next to you, costing you £25/hour, for the rest of your life?
I'll take it for free thanks and watch what everyone else does. Read forums like this, it's full of valuable roadcraft tips from guys like you. And when I see someone driving like a idiot, I learn not to drive like a spineless prick.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Mon 30 Dec 13 at 12:52
|
>> Do you want an instructor sitting next to you, costing you £25/hour, for the rest
>> of your life?
>>
Eh? Do you see the plumber, doctor, plasterer, lawyer, or bus driver with a permanently attached instructor? A skill comes from knowledge, which you either learn, or attempt to copy.
|
You don't understand the question that Manatee asked ON
Manatee - "how many people actually do anything to improve their driving once they have passed?"
I said practise and learn by example. Meaning - you have passed the most basic text, you have a licence, now start learning.
You said "that makes you a DIY bodger". Meaning - you need professional help to carry on learning and practising.
I said "Do you want an instructor sitting next to you, costing you £25/hour, for the rest of your life?" Meaning - if you don't want to be a 'DIY Bodger', then you need professional help to carry on learning.
And finally you say "Do you see the plumber, doctor, plasterer, lawyer, or bus driver with a permanently attached instructor?"
And I say "what on earth are you talking about? Take your medicine (smiley face)."
|
BBD is right of course. You don't have to be able to drive well or even safely to pass the driving test. There's no substitute for miles in all conditions from traffic jam to unlimited German Autobahn. Even if you know theoretically what you ought to do next, it takes years of practice to do those things automatically and unconsciously in a continuous unbroken flow. You can't simply 'drive by numbers'. Part of the enterprise is aesthetic.
And the years of practice only do you any good if you maintain a highly critical attitude to your own driving and truly understand when you have done something potentially risky, the sort of thing we all do quite often. Alas, not everyone is self-critical. Perhaps a majority of drivers continue to drive for years as if they have just passed the test and are very satisfied with their road behaviour.
Into the weeds with the carphounds!
|
>> That just makes you a DIY bodger not a trained skilled driver.
I agree with BBD. Maybe I'd be a better driver if I did IAM or similar but I've learned a lot from reading Roadcraft and IAM publications as well as on forums like this. Thirteen years commuter cycling in London was a constant learning experience too, most of it equally applicable to driving.
Forums also give an insight into just how wrong thinking or eccentric some other road users are.
|
|
One way to improve is to take an experienced driver with you and ask for feedback. This works well for me as my most frequent passenger is someone who has been a keen critic of all aspects of my behaviour for over 50 years
|
>> One way to improve is to take an experienced driver with you and ask for
>> feedback. This works well for me as my most frequent passenger is someone who has
>> been a keen critic of all aspects of my behaviour for over 50 years
>>
But is she qualified in the subject of advanced driving? The only advice I get from my critic is "Slow down". :-)
|
My wife actually does have an advanced driving licence, which is irritating as I do not.
However, she has never done more than 10k miles a year whereas I have done rather a lot more than that. She has had a number of metal bending incidents over the years whereas I have, so far anyway, had none.
She has never had a speeding ticket though...I however...
|
>> She has never had a speeding ticket though...I however...
mimse.
|
|
You know, this thread and the aquaplaning one are beginning to disturb me. I've laboured under the delusion for decades that driving is quite easy...Clearly it's much harder than I thought !
|
|
How difficult driving is depends on the individual's ability. However, it is obvious on the roads today that a number of people believe their ability is higher than it is and are not willing to seek to improve. No matter how good we might be improvement is usually possible.
|
>> No matter how good we might be improvement is usually possible.
Perhaps, but is it necessarily a good idea? We don't want lesser drivers than ourselves driving off the road in paroxysms of hopeless admiration or envy. Maybe some of us need to drive a bit worse than we do to avoid that sort of thing and blend in.
It would be a good exercise too. It's quite difficult to drive really badly on purpose.
|
As in "I'm playing all the right notes, just not necessarily in the right order Mr Preview"
;-)
|
>> How difficult driving is depends on the individual's ability. However, it is obvious on the
>> roads today that a number of people believe their ability is higher than it is
>> and are not willing to seek to improve.
There seems to be an inference from this, and the rest of the thread, that driving standards have deteriorated over time.
In my experience, since getting powered wheels on the road in 1970, I really don't think that has been the case. And road accident statistics seems to back that up.
So is this thread (and the "indicators" thread) simply a case of grumpy old men, who think they are better drivers than anyone else, having a moan?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 17:35
|
>> I really don't think that has been the case. And road accident statistics seems to back that up.
It could even be argued that driving standards have improved, given the increase in traffic density over that period. Even so, there are still a lot of crap drivers who constantly do dangerous things.
|
Not entirely, in my case, it a case of a not yet old, generally cheerfully disposed man who unequivocally knows he's a better driver than anyone else etc etc...
Similar, but with subtle and important qualifications.
;-)
|
"There seems to be an inference from this, and the rest of the thread, that driving standards have deteriorated over time."
Well, I can look back over a slightly longer period, Z - from 1962, to be precise.
"I really don't think that has been the case. And road accident statistics seems to back that up."
I'm inclined to agree in certain respects - that today's drivers are generally more skillful, though maybe not by much. Driving is much more "on the edge" than it was - everyone is much more in a hurry. To a degree, driving skills have had to evolve to keep up.
As for the statistics, they may not prove what you think. They could indicate that modern cars handle better and brake better, which I believe absolutely. And design features like crumple zones plus pedestrian safety in case of collision mean that incidents that would have been fatal 30 years ago are not necessarily so today. I could mention the compulsory wearing of seatbelts too.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 17:45
|
|
I'd guess too that proportionately fewer people routinely drink drive now than in 1962. You'd think anyway. Might be wrong.
|
>> I'd guess too that proportionately fewer people routinely drink drive now than in 1962. You'd
>> think anyway. Might be wrong.
Absolutley, I have pre teen memories of Grandfathers and Uncles considering that driving on 5 or 6 pints (and more) to be the norm.
|
|
Apologies that it appears to imply a deterioration. That was never my intention : I spend , and have spent, a lot of time with young people and respect them. By using the word today I just meant that it is now : not that it was any better in the past. Like others I can remember bad driving examples. However, the amount of traffic and speeds have increased. Although cars themselves have improved significantly there has not been the same improvement in driver ability.
|
>> fewer people routinely drink drive now than in 1962
Well of course, what with breathalysers and scientistic 'proofs' that alcohol blunts the astrophysicist's intellect and brain surgeon's precision needed for driving, and endless media propaganda, terrorising people out of their ingrained habits. It's quite possible that some poor old geezer longing for a nice soothing bracer is going to be more jittery and dangerous on the road than he'd be in a more normal state.
Obviously anyone in their right mind will try to avoid losing their licence by staying on the right side of the arbitrary 'limit'. But it's just an irksome detail that doesn't do much for road safety. That is ensured by the majority of drivers not wanting to kill or maim anyone or damage their cars.
|
"Obviously anyone in their right mind will try to avoid losing their licence by staying on the right side of the arbitrary 'limit'. But it's just an irksome detail that doesn't do much for road safety."
You're winding us up, right?
|
>> You're winding us up, right?
Yes and no. Crashes are caused by bad driving as a rule, not by drivers having had a drink. Cases of people so drunk that they are really dangerous on the road are quite rare, aren't they? Most people have enough sense not to drive when they are in that sort of state. The few who haven't soon get caught and banned (if they aren't jailed after some horrendous accident).
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 18:50
|
|
Drivers having a drink is likely to increase their risk of driving badly. Impaired judgement and motor skills. Yes, the bad driving that kills or injures. The limit should be zero.
|
>> The limit should be
>> zero.
Rubbish. And impossible.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 3 Jan 14 at 19:04
|
|
That is the popular view scot, and the one promoted by safety wonks of all persuasions. But it isn't mine after 60 years on the road.
|
>>The limit should be zero.
The limit is x.
There are three types of drivers;
1) Never drink anything and drive.
2) Drink but stay under the limit
3) Drink and couldn't give a stuff for the limit.
Group 1) will be unaffected by any change to the limit, since they weren't drinking anyway.
Group 3) will be unaffected by any change to the limit, since they just drink anyway.
Group 2) are the only group who will be impacted.
So, for changing the limit to have any sense at all, then it must be that there number of people currently under the limit but having accidents anyway will be dramatically altered by reducing that limit. i.e. the target group that we otherwise perceive as responsible are actually the problem we would like to address.
Now, for a start I don't believe that is true, and secondly I doubt that there are any meaningful statistics addressing the point.
|
1) Never drink anything and drive.
2) Drink but stay under the limit
3) Drink and couldn't give a stuff for the limit.
There's a fourth kind: the driver who aims to stay within the limit but through ignorance, miscalculation or peer pressure gets it wrong. A lower - but not zero - limit would nudge more of these into category 1.
|
>> The limit should be
>> zero.
>>
Ridiculous.
The limit should stay as it is.
No FM2R has ably stated why in his post at 1906...plus...a zero limit would unnecessarily affect those with a minimal amount in their system from the day before; someone who'd gone a bit too mad with the brandy sauce; etc.
The people who currently have a drink and drive within the current limits are not at all a problem on our roads...so leave them alone.
|
While on the subject of DD maybe someone here has the definitive answer after a discussion at work, some mooching through legal material and a Google search.
If you acquire say 3 points on your licence they are valid for 3 years and can be removed from your licence after 4 if you so wish.
If you are convicted of DD, disqualified and awarded points they stay on your licence for 11 years (used to be 10 IIRC) and another DD conviction within 10 years would incur a much stiffer penalty.
My question is how long are the DD points valid? Someone was arguing that 11 years was the answer which I thought was a bit long.
Most searches state that the points are on your licence for 11 years which is agreed but how long are they valid for say totting up purposes?
|
|
Point taken re zero limit. Yes there are cases were it may not have an effect. Probably I was not thinking sufficiently clearly because I was annoyed by the indifference to drink driving. I have no wish to be harsh on responsible drivers. I am concerned that some may be unaware that they are over the limit. Tolerance and body mass do make a difference. Just a thought - if it doesn't make any difference to you below a certain level why bother to drink alcohol.
|
>>
>> Most searches state that the points are on your licence for 11 years which is
>> agreed but how long are they valid for say totting up purposes?
>>
I'm certain it's ten, but like speeding points you have to carry them for an extra year. God knows why.
|
|
Before the Olympics I had to have my driving assessed. We were sent out in groups of 3 with an assessor, and some of the other drivers were truly shocking, particularly at roundabouts. The default position seemed to be no signal at all on entry, followed by two flashes when exit reached. It only seemed to dawn on them that others might want to know which way you were going when horns were heard from behind.
|
"The default position seemed to be no signal at all on entry, followed by two flashes when exit reached."
I assume you mean regardless of which exit they took.
Apart from the rather short duration of the left signal that would of course be correct if they were taking the second exit (straight across a 4 exit roundabout).
|
Improving driving - Armel Coussine
