View Full Version : How do we cut down road crashes?
Walter Ego
27-Feb-11, 18:33
Seeing as despite wailing on elsewhere about road safety, someone hasn't yet actually started a thread on road safety and the measures needed to reduce tragic crashes like the ones we have experienced recently, I thought I'd do it for them.
No commenting on individual incidents.
Over to you.
Discuss.
Somewhere to start from?:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?ID=8094
alistair harper
27-Feb-11, 19:06
Hi there first of all we have to find out what is causing these crashes we are so quick to say it was speed but who admits to speeding.
second we could restrict what size of engine people can drive but even a 1.1 can do 70mph.
better education perhaps.
Does it make a differance if it was someone from their family or a close friend or neighbour as we can see by the accidents they are still happening.
could the roads be the problem
This is going to be a hard one.
Hopefully there are no more because it leaves a lot of people sad for all the loss of lives
orkneycadian
27-Feb-11, 19:12
we could restrict what size of engine people can drive but even a 1.1 can do 70mph.
Over 170 mph if you put it in a motorbike! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR1100XX
alistair harper
27-Feb-11, 19:36
well said we all think its cars but also motorbikes
Dog-eared
27-Feb-11, 19:42
Aren't a large proportion of motorcycle accidents caused by cars. IE cars pulling out in front of bikes ?
37% in fact.
http://ukfrancebikers.com/2010/11/23/37-of-motorcycle-accidents-in-europe-are-caused-by-car-drivers-failing-to-check-their-mirrors/
if you are under 21 you are restricted to 33bhp for the first two years so no point in starting bike-bashing!
The mangled wrecked cars that have been in a deadly smash should be left at various black spots in the County as a permanant reminder to us all to take more care!!!!
C3.....:(
onecalledk
27-Feb-11, 21:05
Perhaps every young person who passes their test should be shown what can happen when a car goes out of control. The problem seems to be that young adults always think it wont happen to them, they almost have an invincible type of attitude to being on the road. Perhaps showing them what can go wrong will shock it out of them.
If not then yes as another poster has proposed limit the size of engine when the test is first passed so that they cannot drive powerful vehicles with such little experience of driving. Perhaps advanced driving should be part of it, with younger people being offered advanced courses at a discount or is that already in operation ?
K
jinglejangle
27-Feb-11, 21:07
doubt that would work corrie 3 - people would be too busy looking at the cars at the black spot they would defo crash!! There are so many circumstances surrounding road crashes, I really don't think you can 'stop' them happening. I think in lots of cases it is pure bad luck, the person has been caught out doing something that most people do but get away with it.
annemarie482
27-Feb-11, 21:09
if you are under 21 you are restricted to 33bhp for the first two years so no point in starting bike-bashing!
would be a good idea to implement a similar idea with car drivers too,
rather than just having a hefty insurance cost as discouragement for higher powered cars,
as in many cases the parents are aiding paying this making them more affordable.
doubt that would work corrie 3 - people would be too busy looking at the cars at the black spot they would defo crash!!
Aye JJ, perhaps you are right but we are known as a nation of "Rubberneckers" so most people will slow right down to get a good look......and that could just save their life!!
C3.....:eek::roll:
Aren't a large proportion of motorcycle accidents caused by cars. IE cars pulling out in front of bikes ?
37% in fact.
http://ukfrancebikers.com/2010/11/23/37-of-motorcycle-accidents-in-europe-are-caused-by-car-drivers-failing-to-check-their-mirrors/
Most minor bike accidents are caused by such "right of way violations" by other traffic. Most fatal bike accidents are caused by bad overtaking and bad cornering by the bike rider.
tonkatojo
27-Feb-11, 21:57
Electronic speed limiters controlled by road implants IE: limited to 30mph in 30zone and so forth up the scale, These could be implemented in black spots. But who has the will or clout to do it ?.
my view is any person how have not had a licence for 2 years should only be able to drive a low cc car and not be allowed to carry passenagers after a certain time then you would not get groups of youngster egging each other on not that all crashes are younster but people seem to think that country roads are safe which they are not we have to deal with tractors around blind bends and livestock in the road do not think i am a townie as i have lived all my life in the country and these are hazards you think as you are on a country road no one else is
I've been in 2 minor car accidents in the last 2 years. First was when i was pregnant with my son and the second was during the bad snow. Both these accidents have affected my driving. The first has made me hate being close to other cars on the road and the second has knocked my confidence alot and has made me afraid to drive in snow. I was a passenger in both.
Both of these were not faults in the driver but the road conditions.
Before we start attacking the young drivers we should look at what caused the individual accidents first. Every driver regardless of how much experience they have can have accidents.
Have to admit though that motorbikes can be dangerous on the road. I was driving through town today and had one behind me most of the way. When i was about to move over in the road the motorcyslist pulled out and passed me. Had i not been keeping a good eye on him we would have collided. When it comes to motorbikes if you don't watch them or look out for them that is when the accident occurs.
To avoid accidents drivers need to be more aware of other road users, aware of how much speed you can handle and safely stop at, and aware of how well or badly you can get yourself out of a situation.
my view is any person how have not had a licence for 2 years should... ...not be allowed to carry passenagers after a certain time then you would not get groups of youngster egging each other on
Already is a rule...
my view is any person how have not had a licence for 2 years should only be able to drive a low cc car and not be allowed to carry passenagers after a certain time then you would not get groups of youngster egging each other on not that all crashes are younster but people seem to think that country roads are safe which they are not we have to deal with tractors around blind bends and livestock in the road do not think i am a townie as i have lived all my life in the country and these are hazards you think as you are on a country road no one else is
Don't agree with you about driving a low cc car untill you've held a license for 2 years. We have a ford mondeo which is a 16 vetec. I'm still currently a learner and this is the car i drive. I have a young child and a smaller car just isn't practical. We've had three cars that i have learnt in and they have all been 1.6 and higher. As a driver you have to learn how to drive different vehicles, learn what the car needs and how to drive her. If someone can not handle a powerful car then they should not drive it. You only drive what you feel comfortable with and are capable of driving.
I do agree with you about the country roads and blind corners. Perhaps it is me being cautious but there are some country roads i would not drive at the speed limit let alone speed on like some lunatics do. The speed limit is not a target and you should always drive at the speed in which is safe for the road.
annemarie482
28-Feb-11, 00:32
[QUOTE=Vistravi;824747] If someone can not handle a powerful car then they should not drive it. You only drive what you feel comfortable with and are capable of driving. [QUOTE]
do you fancy telling the youngsters just through their test that?!!
bigger is better definately is the thought through many a mind.
bearing in mind, many just through their test are now "experianced excellent drivers" :roll: who will not be told!
i agree with what your saying, its the reason i dont drive my partners car, but not everyone does it. :(
Difficult one. There is no quick fix nor single answer.
I don't know if it's a 'Caithness' issue or a rural issue. Since moving up here from a busy urban and suburban city I am gobsmacked at the number of young people losing their lives in road incidents.
In a city environment the 'boy' racers, for want of a better description, learn to drive and continue to drive mostly in 30Mph built up areas. The thrill speed, if you like, may generally be 40 - 60Mph, any more than this in the urban areas is generally geographically difficult to achieve as there is a limit to the number of long straight roads on which to burn rubber.
In rural areas 60Mph is the norm' thus your thrill speed could become 80, 90 or 100 plus. Obviously at these speeds when something goes wrong the consequences are far more severe, especially as rural rounds are bounded by trees, stone walls and ditches, urban roads have other cars to bounce off.
Attitudes in general have changed over the years, we've become more insular and self absorbed. This can be seen in the aggressive manner people drive, more so when it's clear they are in a rush.
I have discussed this with people who a car fanatics and are born and bred up here, and there are some that seem to think it is quite the norm and acceptable to rally round the roads way in excess of the limit 'because we all did it growing up'. But my reply here was when this individual did the growing up, the perfomance of the average car was way below what even a 1.1 or 1.3 can kick out today and traffic was lighter. Times have changed, cars have changed and the amount of traffic on the roads has changed.
Again I don't know if this is an issue just for Caithness, but the density of petrol heads up here appears pretty high, this is not a dig at petrol heads BTW. There are many that can enjoy their vehicles safely but I see more up here, doing more and doing it faster and with a family of similar minded people around them.
I don't have a problem with speed, I will admit to speeding. But, the time, place and conditions have a significant safety factor in this. Too often I see speed with complete disregard for anyones safety. (More often than not the speed is also accompanied by willyhead driving).
Cars should be checked out for 'modifications' more often and more in depth. I don't know how some cars I see on the road these days pass an MOT. Do some of these people consider the entire performance of their vehicle when they change things like the suspension (lowering), engine performance via 'chipping' (do they modify the brakes to suit). Tyres: do the high profile, high speed tyres perform just as well at 'normal' speeds in the wet?
The raspberry exhausts which can give back pressure(?)/ extra BHP, does the rest of the car get upgraded to handle the extra power?
When people modify their cars to perform better at speed and with increased acceleration do they take on extra driver training to manage the situations better?
Do they modify the braking components and suspension to compensate and give comparatively the same braking and handling ability??
The driving syllabus and test should be radically overhauled. There should be a minimum number of hours to sit with a qualified instructor before being allowed to have family and friends take you out for experience. Motorway network driving should be part of the test, or a suitable simulator alternative. Additionally there should be simulators available to replicate high speed situations and the effects there of.
Licence holders should be checked out for currency every few years, say 10 upto the age of 60 then every 5 after that .
Also in this day and age why can't the maximum speed be limited by area (as pointed out above). The technology is there to quite simply and cheaply have engine management chips restrict the speed by the area a vehicle is in. The limit is 30, car restricted to 45. Limit 60 car restricted 75 or similar etc. etc.
my view is any person how have not had a licence for 2 years should only be able to drive a low cc car and not be allowed to carry passenagers after a certain time then you would not get groups of youngster egging each other on not that all crashes are younster but people seem to think that country roads are safe which they are not we have to deal with tractors around blind bends and livestock in the road do not think i am a townie as i have lived all my life in the country and these are hazards you think as you are on a country road no one else is
I can't agree with that.
Whilst speeding may be a major factor in many accidents, it is often not at super high speeds that only powerful cars can reach. Even small engined cars will reach 80 or 90 miles an hour, it just takes them longer to get there. And most performance cars will have lower profile and wider tyres, making them less likely to lose traction.
Yes, anybody might come round a bend to a tractor right in front of them, but the fact is that a higher powered car will also have bigger brakes and be able to stop quicker than a "slower" car.
Youngsters will egg each other on, regardless of what they are driving. Although not proud, I know I did it in a 80bhp diesel peugeot, hardly a high performance car. But hitting a wall at 50mph, there's a good chance you're as dead as you'll be hitting it at 80.
There's improvements to be made, but we have to get away from this mindset that "fast cars kill" and not "bad drivers kill". A bad, or irresponsible, citreon 2CV driver would be more likely to kill themselves or others than a subaru driver.
sorry im just being nosey but why?
i've only been driving since oct and have 2 young children and a 1.1 mk5 fiesta.
it's perfect! fits all needs can fit buggy in the boot and evertything! :) lol
dont get me wrong, my oh's car is like a bus compared to mine!
My partner carries alot of things back and for so needs the space. It is not practical for carrying a child and have space for his and my partner's gear. We share a car atm and even if space wasn't an issue i'd still choose a big car. Considering that such things like delivering a fridge freezer a couple of weeks ago do happen the space is needed.
Our last car was an omega estate and it was amazing what we could get in that.
Other than my instructors car i've driven big cars and could park and handle every single one of them. Makes parking my instructors a piece of cake lol.
annemarie482
28-Feb-11, 00:45
ok so we have lots of arguments that its not the powerful cars at fault.
more so speed in general agreed?
so what now then?
more intensive driving instruction?
raise the age of driving to suit maturity? (lol could be a long time)
suggestions folks?!
ok so we have lots of arguments that its not the powerful cars at fault.
more so speed in general agreed?
so what now then?
more intensive driving instruction?
raise the age of driving to suit maturity? (lol could be a long time)
suggestions folks?!
Speed and perhaps a bit of stupidy and becoming overconfident?
As you know observation is key. If you don't look you don't see untill its too late.
Yes, anybody might come round a bend to a tractor right in front of them, but the fact is that a higher powered car will also have bigger brakes and be able to stop quicker than a "slower" car.I'm thinking a common error here, the braking and handling will be comparative to the vehicles weight and power. It won't necessarily stop quicker but it may stop the bigger, heavier car in the same distance as the smaller, lighter car.
But hitting a wall at 50mph, there's a good chance you're as dead as you'll be hitting it at 80.Too late fer me to go looking but the evidence / statistics point more to the 'speed to zero' ratio being the significant factor in injuries and fatalities. IIRC the ratio works something like: speed prior to impact v distance to impact (nil speed). Or the time it takes to go from whatever speed to zero being the factor that dictates the damage.
(I don't think I'm explaining this very well, I'll come back and edit this)
i.e. a car at 40mph into a wall will suffer worse damage than a car doing 100 hitting the car in front doing 80.
we have to get away from this mindset that "fast cars kill" and not "bad drivers kill". Quite right.
so what now then?
more intensive driving instruction?Its one way of many to start with.
Kevin Milkins
28-Feb-11, 01:11
Paying attention to the road is a good start.:eek:
I went up to Tesco Wick this afternoon and driving past Sutherland Brother's, a lady driving towards me in a silver Renault Kangoo type van with a disabled faclity was having a conversation with the person in the wheel chair in the back, she crossed over to my side of the road.:eek:
If I had not pulled over sharpish into the pull in for Sinclair wWndows it would have been a head on.
I'm thinking a common error here, the braking and handling will be comparative to the vehicles weight and power. It won't necessarily stop quicker but it may stop the bigger, heavier car in the same distance as the smaller, lighter car.
Perhaps that is true when comparing different cars, but, for example you can buy a clio with a 1.2l engine or one with a 2.0l engine. Physically the same size, and wothout a huge difference in weight, the 2.0l version has disc brakes all round, low profile, wider tyres and traction control. These will make it stop in a shorter distance, handle better and less likely to skid.
Too late fer me to go looking but the evidence / statistics point more to the 'speed to zero' ratio being the significant factor in injuries and fatalities. IIRC the ratio works something like: speed prior to impact v distance to impact (nil speed). Or the time it takes to go from whatever speed to zero being the factor that dictates the damage.
(I don't think I'm explaining this very well, I'll come back and edit this)
i.e. a car at 40mph into a wall will suffer worse damage than a car doing 100 hitting the car in front doing 80.
Fair enough. I'm not suggesting that an 80mph crash into a wall is the same as one at 50mph, just that both are going to be very serious incidents.
I think better driving tuition could help. I passed my test after 10 lessons, 10 hours driving, hardly enough experience. I'm sure in some European countries proper driving training by licenced instructors is compulsary. But, that said, is the standard of training here the problem?
Already is a rule...
Since when? I cant find anything to back that up?x
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 11:27
Place much greater control on young loons getting their hands on "desirable" cruising cars through insurance, and potentially legislation as well. Over here, a lot of the issue is with things like Citroen Saxos "souped up" by the addition a different stereo!
If legislation and insurance limited young pups to a group 5 or less car (unmodified!) then cruising and racing would lose a lot of its appeal. As a result, there would be less accidents. Make it such that modifications to cars for under 25's or even under 35's invalidate the insurance and are a reportable road traffic offence. Once they are all running around in bog standard Kia's with standard exhausts and suspension, the desire to see who's car can pull the biggest donuts in the Tesco car park will lose its appeal.
Do as some insurance comapnies do and curfew them at night. Will put paid to the endless cruising and screeching of tyres outside the kebab shop at 3 am on a Sunday morning, and the regular prangs on the roundabout outside the nightclub in Kirkwall, as they try to screech round it to impress (?) everyone, get it wrong and prang into something or someone else.
Have insurance companies carry out a detailed investigation of all instances of young drivers being insured, to make sure there is no "fronting" going on. If young pups had to pay for their own insurance for their Subaru Imprezza turbo when they are 17, there would be a lot less of them tearing up the streets at night, and those that do would be driven a lot more carefully, for fear of them having their insurance double after an accident to £20k!
Have huge compulsory excesses on young drivers to make them think more carefully about driving with care. £3k insurance premium and a £1k excess would help instil some care into the driving!
tonkatojo
28-Feb-11, 11:52
Difficult one. There is no quick fix nor single answer.
I don't know if it's a 'Caithness' issue or a rural issue. Since moving up here from a busy urban and suburban city I am gobsmacked at the number of young people losing their lives in road incidents.
In a city environment the 'boy' racers, for want of a better description, learn to drive and continue to drive mostly in 30Mph built up areas. The thrill speed, if you like, may generally be 40 - 60Mph, any more than this in the urban areas is generally geographically difficult to achieve as there is a limit to the number of long straight roads on which to burn rubber.
In rural areas 60Mph is the norm' thus your thrill speed could become 80, 90 or 100 plus. Obviously at these speeds when something goes wrong the consequences are far more severe, especially as rural rounds are bounded by trees, stone walls and ditches, urban roads have other cars to bounce off.
Attitudes in general have changed over the years, we've become more insular and self absorbed. This can be seen in the aggressive manner people drive, more so when it's clear they are in a rush.
I have discussed this with people who a car fanatics and are born and bred up here, and there are some that seem to think it is quite the norm and acceptable to rally round the roads way in excess of the limit 'because we all did it growing up'. But my reply here was when this individual did the growing up, the perfomance of the average car was way below what even a 1.1 or 1.3 can kick out today and traffic was lighter. Times have changed, cars have changed and the amount of traffic on the roads has changed.
Again I don't know if this is an issue just for Caithness, but the density of petrol heads up here appears pretty high, this is not a dig at petrol heads BTW. There are many that can enjoy their vehicles safely but I see more up here, doing more and doing it faster and with a family of similar minded people around them.
I don't have a problem with speed, I will admit to speeding. But, the time, place and conditions have a significant safety factor in this. Too often I see speed with complete disregard for anyones safety. (More often than not the speed is also accompanied by willyhead driving).
Cars should be checked out for 'modifications' more often and more in depth. I don't know how some cars I see on the road these days pass an MOT. Do some of these people consider the entire performance of their vehicle when they change things like the suspension (lowering), engine performance via 'chipping' (do they modify the brakes to suit). Tyres: do the high profile, high speed tyres perform just as well at 'normal' speeds in the wet?
The raspberry exhausts which can give back pressure(?)/ extra BHP, does the rest of the car get upgraded to handle the extra power?
When people modify their cars to perform better at speed and with increased acceleration do they take on extra driver training to manage the situations better?
Do they modify the braking components and suspension to compensate and give comparatively the same braking and handling ability??
The driving syllabus and test should be radically overhauled. There should be a minimum number of hours to sit with a qualified instructor before being allowed to have family and friends take you out for experience. Motorway network driving should be part of the test, or a suitable simulator alternative. Additionally there should be simulators available to replicate high speed situations and the effects there of.
Licence holders should be checked out for currency every few years, say 10 upto the age of 60 then every 5 after that .
Also in this day and age why can't the maximum speed be limited by area (as pointed out above). The technology is there to quite simply and cheaply have engine management chips restrict the speed by the area a vehicle is in. The limit is 30, car restricted to 45. Limit 60 car restricted 75 or similar etc. etc.
Why have a car restricted to 45 in a 30 zone ?
Orkneycadian,
I think the real complaints against "cruisers" are because they are a noise nuisance etc. I don't know if it's directly relevant to road deaths.
Modifications to cars, suspension, exhausts etc DO invalidate insurance. I would agree that the authorities should perhaps clamp down on this a bit more.
As for pricing people out of driving, I don't see that as a way forward. The rich kids will still get mummy and daddy to pay. It might also lead to more people deliberately driving without insurance. A significant cause of accidents, fatal or otherwise, is caused by inexperience. Even when speed is the issue, a more experienced driver would know that a corner can't be taken so fast. Stopping young people being able to afford insurance would result in them getting less experience on the road. Counter productive.
Going back to the subject of deaths on our roads, we're not always talking about 17 or 18 year olds so it's perhaps unfair to single them out. We're also not always talking about the "cruisers" doing their endless laps around town or spinning tyres in car parks. The deaths are normally outside town on the "A" roads.
Why should a 24 year old, who's held a licence for 7 years pay more insurance than a 25 year old who passed their test yesterday?
The only way to cut road crashes in the county is for a fundamental change in peoples attitude to driving. My personal opinion is that the standard of driving in Caithness is shocking compared to the rest of the UK. There are the two extremes that I have come across. There are those with the speed and aggression and those that tootle along 10-20 mph below the speed limit that seem oblivious that they are holding up (and therefore frustrating) those behind.
I am often tailgated (while I am travelling at 60) and if I have to break suddenly....well it's obvious what would happen. I also routinely travel between Thurso and Castletown - it is an absolute disgrace the way some people drive through there. I get flashed by cars behind while doing 50 in the 50 zone, overtaken while doing 30 in the 30 zone coming out of castletown, overtaken going over a blind crest of a hill, and the other week a car came out of nowhere and went past me at around 80-90 mph.
It's quite frankly a miracle that we don't have a fatal crash everyday on our road, because with the standards of driving we probably should.
Insurance is already very high for young drivers,it cost me a fortune to put my son on my policy when he passed,more than it did when he was learning! It wont stop crashes though,as someone already said some kids will still get insured by mum and dads who can afford it,while other, perhaps more responsible drivers wont be able to afford it! I have been very lucky,my son is a careful driver,it still worries me when he is out,but I know that he isnt "one of the lads" and wont be egged on by others,he is too old for his age in that respect! Nothing we say or do will change the accident problem,its peoples error of judgement that causes MOST accidents,and we cannot modify that can we?ALSO some accident are caused by inexperience,the only way to get experience is either by driving or having the advanced course,but thats not cheap either,so perhaps lowering the cost of it would help more people take it and become more experinced x
The only way to cut road crashes in the county is for a fundamental change in peoples attitude to driving. My personal opinion is that the standard of driving in Caithness is shocking compared to the rest of the UK. There are the two extremes that I have come across. There are those with the speed and aggression and those that tootle along 10-20 mph below the speed limit that seem oblivious that they are holding up (and therefore frustrating) those behind.
I am often tailgated (while I am travelling at 60) and if I have to break suddenly....well it's obvious what would happen. I also routinely travel between Thurso and Castletown - it is an absolute disgrace the way some people drive through there. I get flashed by cars behind while doing 50 in the 50 zone, overtaken while doing 30 in the 30 zone coming out of castletown, overtaken going over a blind crest of a hill, and the other week a car came out of nowhere and went past me at around 80-90 mph.
It's quite frankly a miracle that we don't have a fatal crash everyday on our road, because with the standards of driving we probably should.
I find this too on the way to wick and between thurso and castletown. Some drivers have issues with the speed limit they need to resolve before they end up dead.
Insurance is already very high for young drivers,it cost me a fortune to put my son on my policy when he passed,more than it did when he was learning! It wont stop crashes though,as someone already said some kids will still get insured by mum and dads who can afford it,while other, perhaps more responsible drivers wont be able to afford it! I have been very lucky,my son is a careful driver,it still worries me when he is out,but I know that he isnt "one of the lads" and wont be egged on by others,he is too old for his age in that respect! Nothing we say or do will change the accident problem,its peoples error of judgement that causes MOST accidents,and we cannot modify that can we?ALSO some accident are caused by inexperience,the only way to get experience is either by driving or having the advanced course,but thats not cheap either,so perhaps lowering the cost of it would help more people take it and become more experinced x
I agree.
Ours was shocking! To have me as a learner and my partner it was near enough 2 grand!
oldmarine
28-Feb-11, 14:04
Drive sensible and be alert. Mentally place yourself in the other driver's vehicle and try to figure what he/she may do next. Certainly drive within the speed limit.
Keep up with the scheduled maintenance of your vehicle. Being a believer I always pray that my Lord God is with me.
The reason it costs more for a qualified driver than a learner is the lack of supervision required for a qualified driver i.e they are let loose on their own. insurance is costed the way it is because young drivers are a massive risk to take on.
I wholeheartedly disagree on the fitment of speed restrictors on cars, imagine following a car on a country lane doing 55mph you see an opening on a straight to overtake and begin the manouvre you then hit your restrictor at 60 or 65mph when alongside them and it takes and age to overtake or worse a car appears around the corner heading straight for you, the thing about overtaking is the "time exposed to danger" the longer you are on the opposite side of the road the more risk you are at.
I also disagree on limiting the size of vehicled for your drivers, I think that a big car is a safer option than a little car due to the sheer bulk of the object, as others have said it is their choice what a person buys.
Perhaps a GPS tracker would be a better option on all cars that when you exceed the speed limit the owner of the car is automatically sent a fine, ban or whatever.
However I personally would be dead against that also as I could be accused of exceeding the national speed limits on occasion.
The only real thing that can make a difference in Caithness or anywhere is education!!
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 14:08
Orkneycadian,
I think the real complaints against "cruisers" are because they are a noise nuisance etc. I don't know if it's directly relevant to road deaths.
I think it would be naive to assume the 2 wern't connected. A mate of mine spoke to the police a few weeks ago on a Saturday night on an A road outside Kirkwall. They said they were actually looking for the "boy racers" who run round the town for a while, then take off to the country for a burn up out 1 road and back in another.
Modifications to cars, suspension, exhausts etc DO invalidate insurance. I would agree that the authorities should perhaps clamp down on this a bit more.
I thought I heard that insurance was going the same way as road tax? i.e. if the car is not SORNED then if there is no insurance covering it, then its an automatic fine? Modifications could well be something that could get covered at MOT time as well. If its modified, it fails.
As for pricing people out of driving, I don't see that as a way forward. The rich kids will still get mummy and daddy to pay. It might also lead to more people deliberately driving without insurance.
Not necessarily the case to price them out of it. 17 year olds fresh out of the test could still get to run around in a group 1 Smart or Kia Picanto or whatever to gain driving experience, without having the power of a Mitsubishi Evo under their right foot. Maybe rather than pricing them out, it has to be legislated out. So, when you are 17 / 1 year passed your test, you can legally drive a group 1 car, 18 / 2 years passed, a group 2, kind of thing. Then it wouldnt matter how rich Daddy was, little Johnny still cant have an Imprezza till he is 30 or whatever.
A significant cause of accidents, fatal or otherwise, is caused by inexperience. Even when speed is the issue, a more experienced driver would know that a corner can't be taken so fast. Stopping young people being able to afford insurance would result in them getting less experience on the road. Counter productive.
Fair enough, so maybe it points back to it being a table of age, years experience and what insurance group of car you are permitted to drive.
Going back to the subject of deaths on our roads, we're not always talking about 17 or 18 year olds so it's perhaps unfair to single them out. We're also not always talking about the "cruisers" doing their endless laps around town or spinning tyres in car parks. The deaths are normally outside town on the "A" roads.
Most true, but I think recent experience in Caithness might suggest that those involved in 2 recent incidents on the A roads were quite young and/or driving cars normally associated with "cruising"
Why should a 24 year old, who's held a licence for 7 years pay more insurance than a 25 year old who passed their test yesterday?
A conundrum indeed. Thing is, the 24 year old with 7 years of "experience" might be a total petrolhead who has had a car since as early as possible, and has now moved up to a Nissan Skyline to impress his mates with, and drives it accordingly. The 25 year old might not really be into cars, but had to take a test because of the job they were in. They might only be driving because they have to, and have no desire to go tearing up the tarmac on a Saturday night for the heck of it, and don't feel the need to fill the town centre with tyre smoke. The latter might be quite happy being restricted to a group x car, whilst the former will likely not be!
Insurance is already very high for young drivers,it cost me a fortune to put my son on my policy when he passed,more than it did when he was learning! It wont stop crashes though,as someone already said some kids will still get insured by mum and dads who can afford it
If the kids had to fork out the insurance themselves they may learn the value of money and drive a bit more carefully as a result.
If the kids had to fork out the insurance themselves they may learn the value of money and drive a bit more carefully as a result.
You have just classed all "kids" together there,(you may as well say all kids are bad drivers,not the case IMO,some are more overconfident than they should be on the roads),mine couldnt pay for it,he was at school and as a single parent I struggled,but I managed it,with a little help from him,other boys his age were handed a brand new car and insurance to go with it,so who appreciated theirs more? You still havent answered my original question though,and I am worried that if it is a legal requirement and I dont know about it,I may be allowing my son to break the law?As for driving more carefully from learning the value of money,I highly doubt it,if they dont value their own lives,then why would they value money?
""Most true, but I think recent experience in Caithness might suggest that those involved in 2 recent incidents on the A roads were quite young and/or driving cars normally associated with "cruising""
I think the most recent accident was a vauxhall astra driven by a 23yr old man and the earlier one was a subaru impreza driven by a 33 year old man.
One a family hatchback and one a high performance saloon car.
At what age do you suggest being let loose on performance cars?
Has anyone considered the possibility of poor road conditions?
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 14:39
23 = quite young
Imprezza = "Cruising car"
Maybe the age needs to be 35?
If the kids had to fork out the insurance themselves they may learn the value of money and drive a bit more carefully as a result.
I agree, my daughter is 17 next week and shes still at school but shes paying her own insurance with her part time job money.Most of her friends parents pay thiers and buy the car for kids who dont want a part time job.
Too easy for a lot of kids and they lose all respect for a lot of things.
There is nothing illegal about modifying cars as long as you tell your insurance company, If you want to modify your car go ahead free choice nd all, as long as it comply's with the law.
There is no point limiting the CC a car has, a 2.0L citroen picasso has 90bhp, a 2.0L Mitsubishi Evolution has 450bhp
Make everyone fit snow tyres to their vehicles?
the astra mentioned above was standard and no, not associated with cruising, and whilst the impreza was modified it was driven by an experienced driver, who didnt "cruise"
Cruising tends to be done around town where there are less deaths
There is no point guessing or blaming people involved in those type of accidents until the police reports are out
Penelope Pitstop
28-Feb-11, 15:17
I agree, my daughter is 17 next week and shes still at school but shes paying her own insurance with her part time job money.Most of her friends parents pay thiers and buy the car for kids who dont want a part time job.
Too easy for a lot of kids and they lose all respect for a lot of things.
I can't help thinking this is a bit of a sweeping statement. In my experience most kids don't get cars, insurance, road tax, fuel just given to them, they have to earn it by some means or another, which is usually why they run around in much older cheaper, smaller engined cars!!
As for pricing 17 year olds out of higher performance cars, I think that the insurance system pretty well sorts that out just now! I've found out that anything over a 1100cc engine for a 17 year old is pretty prohibitive in insurance costs!
Surprised no-ones mentioned the state of the roads as a factor yet. If you hit a pothole that wasn't there the last time you were on a road, for instance, on a corner you know you can take at 60 mph, you will be across the road before you know whats happened...
I learnt to drive in a Metro, then the day I passed my test had the choice of 2.0 Granada's, various Sierra's and an XR3i within the family to drive - no-one batted an eyelid to me taking one of those out. As a family of petrol heads we'd been brought up to respect cars and the power under the bonnet.
I'd also be interested to know when people are out with an instructor are they actually learning to drive or just learning to pass the test. Even though it was only a Metro my instructor learnt me not to brake once I was actually 'in' a corner, to accelerate out of corners etc Also he drummed in to me not to rely on my brakes and use the gears to slow down etc
I think I did mention the poor road conditions beign a possibility.
Someone said 23 as being a young driver, I am sorry but that is potentially a driver with 6 years experience. If you had 6 years experience in your job are you experienced or inexperienced?
You say an impreza is a cruising car, what about a vauxhall corsa, ford fiesta honda civic and the like I think you will see much more of these types than impreza's. Just because a car is powerful doesnt make it a cruisers car. Do you want any car that is capable of exceeding the national speed limit banned or restricted?
As carasman has pointed out gaining a driving liscence is about passing the test and not beign a competant driver however both of these recent tragedies involved drivers that I would consider to be experienced. I notice that nobody seems to have considerd mechanical failure as a potential cause, or how about a deer on the road or maybe the driver took a funny turn!!
There are so many potential causes of accidents, lets not be keyboard accident investigators here and lets not lose sight of the losses the families of the victims are suffering
23 = quite young
Imprezza = "Cruising car"
Maybe the age needs to be 35?
Ok next question what is the definition of a "performance car"
I think I did mention the poor road conditions beign a possibility.
Someone said 23 as being a young driver, I am sorry but that is potentially a driver with 6 years experience. If you had 6 years experience in your job are you experienced or inexperienced?
You say an impreza is a cruising car, what about a vauxhall corsa, ford fiesta honda civic and the like I think you will see much more of these types than impreza's. Just because a car is powerful doesnt make it a cruisers car. Do you want any car that is capable of exceeding the national speed limit banned or restricted?
As carasman has pointed out gaining a driving liscence is about passing the test and not beign a competant driver however both of these recent tragedies involved drivers that I would consider to be experienced. I notice that nobody seems to have considerd mechanical failure as a potential cause, or how about a deer on the road or maybe the driver took a funny turn!!
There are so many potential causes of accidents, lets not be keyboard accident investigators here and lets not lose sight of the losses the families of the victims are suffering
Good post,couldnt rep you again tho or I would of! At the end of the day,this is only ever discussed when a tragic accident happens,and everyone thinks they know what happened and how to stop it happening again,well it wont stop it happening talking about it on here,or trying to put blame on others for giving their son/daughter a car etc,there are lots of factors to take into consideration,accidents are usually just that...an accident,tragic none the less but tearing it apart looking for answers wont chnage that x
I think I did mention the poor road conditions beign a possibility.
Someone said 23 as being a young driver, I am sorry but that is potentially a driver with 6 years experience. If you had 6 years experience in your job are you experienced or inexperienced?
You say an impreza is a cruising car, what about a vauxhall corsa, ford fiesta honda civic and the like I think you will see much more of these types than impreza's. Just because a car is powerful doesnt make it a cruisers car. Do you want any car that is capable of exceeding the national speed limit banned or restricted?
As carasman has pointed out gaining a driving liscence is about passing the test and not beign a competant driver however both of these recent tragedies involved drivers that I would consider to be experienced. I notice that nobody seems to have considerd mechanical failure as a potential cause, or how about a deer on the road or maybe the driver took a funny turn!!
There are so many potential causes of accidents, lets not be keyboard accident investigators here and lets not lose sight of the losses the families of the victims are suffering
Sorry Mi16, I assumed frosty/greasy road conditions when I read your post.
I must admit that was the main thinking behind it, but then changed my wording to cover all eventualities with the condition of the roads.
On that point it must be pointed out that the roads across scotland are in an awful state.
Makes me wonder what the £235 I shelled out this morning for roat tax goes towards.
Its just the fatal road crashes that get peoples attention.
What about the cars you see upsidedown in ditches where people have "walked" away with minor or no injuries.
Nobody really hears about them, there is a car I noticed today upsidedown with police tape on it on the way to Wick.
There must be a multitude of small bumps and prangs happening daily.
Bigger and more serious accidents happening less often, and fatal accidents very rarely so when they happen everyone sits up and takes notice.
I had a bump myself the other month which I thought nothing off, skidded off the road on black ice into a ditch/wall.
I guess I must have been driving too fast for the road conditions although I was doing 20mph max, however if you cannot stop and go off the road then you are going too fast.
I am under 35 and was drivign a vauxhall vectra...does that make me an idiotic boy racer cruiser idiot??
probably
We had some very serious road collisions here and in the Community I lived in, it got so bad that the High School Student Council, along with the Police took a vehicle that had been in a Fatal Collision involving a Student, and parked it on the front lawn of the High School..
It had huge shock value, and lots of complaints of insensitivity but over the years it seemed to do the trick.
Other High Schools followed suit and it became a 'Grave Warning' on the dangers of Speed and Drinking.
I don't think the size of the engine has a lot to do with these collisions...Here when you pass your test you can drive a 1.2 or 6 litre.
With adults I just don't know. I don't think anyone does......I did hear that Adults were also aware of the wrecked cars...it made them think.
There is a 'thing' called...'The Quest for speed' and we nearly all go thru that. One of the UK's most popular shows is Jeremy Clarkson and from what I see most of his presentations are on cars and speed......
Walter Ego
28-Feb-11, 17:11
Just a polite reminder, folks:
Can we keep it to road safety in general and not drift into speculating on recent individual incidents?
Thx.
W.
I had a bump myself the other month which I thought nothing off, skidded off the road on black ice into a ditch/wall.
I guess I must have been driving too fast for the road conditions although I was doing 20mph max, however if you cannot stop and go off the road then you are going too fast.
I am under 35 and was drivign a vauxhall vectra...does that make me an idiotic boy racer cruiser idiot??
probably
Vectra vxr lol ?
Modifications could well be something that could get covered at MOT time as well. If its modified, it fails.
Not all modified cars are bad. Some after being modified handle better and in most cases corner better. Take for example a vw polo. They have a tenancy of rolling when you hit a corner at the speed limit. But if you lower it 30 to 60 mil then the tenancy is slimmed down.
Another example is of my partner's summer car and our family car. Our family car is a ford mondeo 16v vetec and his summer car is a celica gt4. Ford mondeo is as basic as it comes while the celica is lowered 60 mill, has special tyres on it, spoiler, dumpvalve etc.
Now guess which one corners better? Afraid to say it is the celica. It is a car you hear before you see and is low down (Got stuck when pregnant in it). But it is better at cornering and is a good car. Our mondeo is not as good but is good enough.
The of course some cars come as standard lowered 30 mil. Another example is a accord which handles like a boat when it comes to corners in its standard condition. Lower it 30 mil and she's a whole lot better.
I had a bump myself the other month which I thought nothing off, skidded off the road on black ice into a ditch/wall.
I guess I must have been driving too fast for the road conditions although I was doing 20mph max, however if you cannot stop and go off the road then you are going too fast.
I am under 35 and was drivign a vauxhall vectra...does that make me an idiotic boy racer cruiser idiot??
probably
Thats what our previous accidents were, bumps. One of them wrote of our car though.
Thats what our previous accidents were, bumps. One of them wrote of our car though.
How many cars was that ?
How many cars was that ?
Our car and a fence in snow conditions.
Vectra vxr lol ?
Would it make any difference if it was?
I agree that mods in themselves are not bad, I was once a keen modifier in my younger days and as you say the car can corner better, stop better and very often go better.
As long as your mods are declared to the insurance company and fitted correctly then I have no issues with them at all.
I dont agree with your thinking that the lower the car the better the handling though, more often than not if it is lowered without adjusting the wheel alignment etc the handling will be upset and really slammed vehicles behave awfly very harsh and bouncy. You must always remember to uprate the dampers as well as the springs also.
You will find though that a standard vehicle in good condition mechanically will drive perfectly well through the bends at a sensible speed, if you are testing out the dynamics of the suspension then you are travellign way too fast.
Nobody really hears about them, there is a car I noticed today upsidedown with police tape on it on the way to Wick.
I saw that as well. My fiance is in a car school, lives in Thurso but works in Wick, and last winter on the way through to work the car he was in went skidding off the road due to black ice and ended up in a ditch. All were fine thankfully and they just pushed the car back out the ditch and carried on to work. End of. They said several people were in the same situation that morning on various roads.
I don't think there are any quick or simple answers that can be given but I totally agree that education (or lack of) is a huge factor in this. I am 21 and have been driving for almost 3 years, I drive a 1.2 corsa and would probably see myself as quite a cautious driver however still an inexperienced driver. I have luckily never been in any crashes however I have lost friends of all ages due to accidents on the roads. I think everyone should be made more aware of the responsibilities you gain as a result of actually passing your test and driving a car and, as with anything, it should start at a younger age before they are able to get behind a steering wheel.
This won't solve everything but I do think it's a starting point, although I feel that sometimes road and driving laws aren't reinforced to their full potential which, if they were, I think would help also.
Now heaven forbid if they had been unlucky enough to skid into a solid object or an artic lorry things could have been so much different.
Undoubtedly thay were driving too fast for the road conditions but does it make them reckless?
I wouldnt have said so.
It is a criminal act to speed, the car does not speed the driver does that. It makes no difference what the make or modifications to the car the person in charge of the car either uses it as a safe mode of transport or as a possible lethal weapon. There was a time when drunk driving was socially acceptable but thank goodness not today and the sooner speeding is regarded in the same way the sooner we will all be safer on the roads. The police presence on the roads throughout the county needs to be increased until criminality of the roads is reduced, that worked for drunk driving all over the country and no reason why it would not work for bad driving and speeding within the county.
Undoubtedly thay were driving too fast for the road conditions but does it make them reckless?
I wouldnt have said so.
If someone drives too fast for the road conditions then that can be nothing else but reckless...actually, no, I am wrong!...Not only is it reckless, its stupid and dangerous and can be life threatening to anyone concerned.
C3....:roll:
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 18:26
Ok next question what is the definition of a "performance car"
I guess its back to a previous suggestion then of requiring to be 17 yo to drive a group 1 car, 18 yo + 1 year experience for a group 2, 19 yo + 2 years experience for a group 3 or whatever. The insurance industry have already assessed the ratings of all cars into 50 groups, with a Citroen C1 in group 1 and a Nissan Skyline in group 50. OK, so 17 + 50 = 67 years old to drive a group 50 car! Maybe the increment in group entitlement needs to be 2 or 3 groups a year. If it were 3 groups a year, then folk wouldn't get to drive Skylines and 911 turbos till they were a minimum of 34 and had 16 years experience. Sounds feasible. :lol:
Regarding modifying. Doing so just encourages "showing off", whether it be a tyre smoking burn up in a supermarket car park, or a drag race on a straight country road, to see if changing the air filter for a pair of 15 denier tights actually does make a Saxo go 3 mph faster! ;)
To be honest Orkneycadian your plan sounds OK however I am 34 and if I could afford to buy and run one I would be seriously disgruntled that I couldnt drive a 911 turbo as I would consider myself to be a decent driver and more then competant to do so, 10 years no claims discount woudl surely lay testament to this (touch wood). As others have said the can does not make a deadly weapon the right foot does, I woudl think then 90% of new cars these days are capable of 100mph if you so desired. Crashing at 100mph or 160mph will more than likely have the same effect.
Also how many fatal accidents involving under 34 year olds are happening in supercars i wonder?
With regards to modifying there is a pretty valid arguemnt that a modifier is in fact a motoring enthusiast and is more likely to look after his/her pride and joy rather than destroying it on a burn out at the COOP.
I assume that you like the odd drink or 2, does that make you George Best?
I assume from your rather hard line response Corrie3 that you have never had a bump or scrape of any sort in your time on the road?
Im sorry but sliding off the road on black ice at 20mph isnt reckless, its bad luck. however due to the fact that you had a bump you were driving too fast for the road conditions.
Have you ever bumped your door in a carpark? if you had does that make you a mindless vandelising yob that is ASBO worthy?
How about tipping the curb with your wheel, that is considered wreckless driving and as such the sentance is a mandatory ban.
I think I would be banned for life or locked up by now.
Ideally raise the legal age to drive to 25 would cut accident rates right down becuse your more muture and less likely to speed carelessley or speed so much to what 18 year would do and ure more aware at 25 of the consquences of speeding but i would raise the legal age to drive to 25 if it were up to me.
When u pass your test at 17 who hasnt speeded and it 17 your fearless of driving fast and over confident when the reality is your not fully aware of how things can go wrong so easily.
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 19:08
As others have said the car does not make a deadly weapon the right foot does,
The same "argument" has been made on other threads re guns and knives. The exact same would apply - Its not the gun that is the deadly weapon, its the finger on the trigger, etc etc.
Yet, we have had laws to take away handguns, so that a very small minority do not go around killing folk, there is a current moratorium on new firearms certificates for rifles and shotguns, and we hear that the Scottish Government would like to ban airguns now as well! In context, an airgun is the 50cc moped (one that runs badly and can hardly produce enough power to keep its flywheel turning let alone do any useable work...) of the gun world, and yet, these are deemed too dangerous?
Now, I don't want to turn the thread into another discussion about guns, but we seem happy to let folk have their right to a lethal weapon on 4 wheels, then wonder why threads are started up saying "How can we cut down on (fatal) road crashes"?
Its not about banning young folk from cars. But ensuring that they gain the experience before getting loose on cars beyond their capabilities. The insurance industry already recognises this, as much as some do not like it, remind them through premiums or turning down cover that young folk in souped up and modified cars are the highest risks on their books. If we are looking for answers as to cutting down road crashes, then surely looking at the experience of the insurance companies is a lot easier than re-inventing the wheel? (pun intended! [lol])
And I don't see the modified argument that they take better care of their cars as a valid one. If you are 18 years old and out on the town on a Saturday night in your mums bog standard 1.2 Polo with your younger siblings booster seat in the back, your a lot less likely to be pulling "Look at me, I'm cool" stunts in the Tesco carpark, or racing an Imprezza on a straight country road! When someone has modified their car by chopping out most of the exhaust and replacing it with a bit of drain pipe (;)), there not likely to run around canny. Nope, its a case of rev the nuts off it to shout - "Listen to my car, its loud". Final nail in the coffin of this argument is if cars which are modified are owned by enthusiasts who take more care than the standard driver, then modified cars would attract a reduction in insurance premium - Not an addition.
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 19:12
Ideally raise the legal age to drive to 25 would cut accident rates right down becuse your more muture and less likely to speed carelessley or speed so much to what 18 year would do and ure more aware at 25 of the consquences of speeding but i would raise the legal age to drive to 25 if it were up to me.
When u pass your test at 17 who hasnt speeded and it 17 your fearless of driving fast and over confident when the reality is your not fully aware of how things can go wrong so easily.
And/or introduce a compulsory probationary period on a 50 cc moped / scooter before getting behind the wheel of a car with L plates on. No better way to appreciate the ways of the road, the dangers of road surfaces and the liabilities that car drivers can be when you are on 2 wheels. 30 mph maximum so you cant speed even if you wanted to, and your mates are a lot less likely to all pile in the back on a Saturday night and egg you into madness! 2 years probation before starting in a car should be a good start!
I know a 20 year old with a subaru impreza running just short of 400bhp,that makes it capable of 180mph and 60mph in 4.8 seconds,he seems to be keeping it on the road just fine for somebody who has only had a license 18months..........
Would it make any difference if it was?
I agree that mods in themselves are not bad, I was once a keen modifier in my younger days and as you say the car can corner better, stop better and very often go better.
As long as your mods are declared to the insurance company and fitted correctly then I have no issues with them at all.
I dont agree with your thinking that the lower the car the better the handling though, more often than not if it is lowered without adjusting the wheel alignment etc the handling will be upset and really slammed vehicles behave awfly very harsh and bouncy. You must always remember to uprate the dampers as well as the springs also.
You will find though that a standard vehicle in good condition mechanically will drive perfectly well through the bends at a sensible speed, if you are testing out the dynamics of the suspension then you are travellign way too fast.
I was just being sarcastic to other people,I have owned and will own a modified(tuned) car soon,thing is if i want to race it ill put it to a controlled environment(knockhill) that is if i want to drive like schumacher on an overdose of redbull :D
Have you ever tried to insure a modified car mate?, a few years back I built a vehicle for hillclimbs and sprins and as such the mods extended to the following:
Lowered and uprated suspension
Upgraded brakes
Stripped interior
Racing seats and harnesses
Full rollcage
Performance exhaust
Upgraded engien capacity from 1.6 litre 8 valve to 2.0 litre 16 valve
Upgraded camshafts
Upgraded airfilter
Upgraded ECU
When I insured the vehicle the broker said due to the safety enhancements and the fact that the car your donor engine came from is of a lower risk than yours the premium will be reduced by £10, so there you have it. I admit it s not often the case but it was my experience of modified cars.
You say that the insurance indusly ramp up souped up or modified cars, is it not the case that ANY car being driven by a youngster is hammered for insurance regardless.
Maybe I have had a sheltered upbringing in Caithness but i have never felt the requirement for a 9mm pistol during my normal day to day activities but i sure need my trusty car.
So do you intend a kids seat to be mandatory for younger drivers then, you will find that a homemade exhaust will not pass MOT or noise regs so thats a no go, do you not think that several years on a bicycle woud count for experience of 2 wheels with a 30mph max speed.
The Scottish commute has just become a whole lot more deadly with loads of mopeds trying to negociate the snow and ice, maybe 4 fatalities a week woudl be more likely now. Pretty hard to get your weeks shopping home on a moped also. Jings my 600 mile a week commute would be torture, thank god im 34.
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 19:40
is it not the case that ANY car being driven by a youngster is hammered for insurance regardless.
Since the poster immediately before you mentions a 20 year old with a 400 bhp Imprezza, and 18 months driving experience, then obviously not!
To own such a car at a tender age he must be a well heeled young chap and can therefore afford the premium.
if you have the cash you can insure anything you want
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 19:47
But alas, being 18 and rich does not make you an experienced and proficient driver....
I never suggested that it did however I said that youngters are hammered by insurance companies whch you challenged.
I think the young impreza man will be paying several thousand pounds to insure the car if it iis all above board.
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 20:01
Not hammered enough in some cases is what I meant. Its clear then that insurance premiums alone are not sufficient to reduce the likelihood of road crashes from young loons driving high powered cars. For some, obviously, there are ways and means, probably involving a rich pair of parents, or ones willing to "front" the insurance.
Indeed, there are loopholes in every part of society.
Orkneycadian
Is the moped still on the cards then under your rule?
Ideally raise the legal age to drive to 25 would cut accident rates right down becuse your more muture and less likely to speed carelessley or speed so much to what 18 year would do and ure more aware at 25 of the consquences of speeding but i would raise the legal age to drive to 25 if it were up to me.
When u pass your test at 17 who hasnt speeded and it 17 your fearless of driving fast and over confident when the reality is your not fully aware of how things can go wrong so easily.
I wouldn't call that ideal at all.
If you're old enough to fight for your country, have a pint and go to jail for your crimes then you're responsible enough to drive.
Why have a car restricted to 45 in a 30 zone ?
I wholeheartedly disagree on the fitment of speed restrictors on cars, imagine following a car on a country lane doing 55mph you see an opening on a straight to overtake and begin the manouvre you then hit your restrictor at 60 or 65mph when alongside them and it takes and age to overtake or worse a car appears around the corner heading straight for you, the thing about overtaking is the "time exposed to danger"..........
Hence having restrictors set above the limit to allow for overtaking but not so high that reckless speed can be used in low speed areas.
Not necessarily the case to price them out of it. 17 year olds fresh out of the test could still get to run around in a group 1 Smart or Kia Picanto or whatever to gain driving experience, without having the power of a Mitsubishi Evo under their right foot. Maybe rather than pricing them out, it has to be legislated out. So, when you are 17 / 1 year passed your test, you can legally drive a group 1 car, 18 / 2 years passed, a group 2, kind of thing. Then it wouldnt matter how rich Daddy was, little Johnny still cant have an Imprezza till he is 30 or whatever.
No point in ramping up insurance, peeps will just go without insurance all together.
Very difficult to legislate and police a mix of ages and insurance groups that you could drive.
Maybe the insurance industry could sponsor a range of advanced driving lessons / tests. Make them cheap enough for people to take them up and then the benefits of cheaper insurance by being more proficient.
Now guess which one corners better?This, for me, touches on the 'attitude' we have. I would imagine the majority of modern cars that are properly maintained will corner adequately at the appropriate speeds. My thoughts are the only need to modify your car for better cornering is to benefit from cornering faster.
Im sorry but sliding off the road on black ice at 20mph isnt reckless, its bad luck.Again, in my mind, the 'attitude'. When you lose control of the car your unlucky. No, the vehicle was not being driven appropriately for the conditions.
......young loons driving high powered cars.I've seen plenty of 'mid life crisis' drivers too. Middle aged and whizzing around in a coupe trying to be 18 again.
And the elderly, blissfully trundling along "I've been driving 70 years and never had an accident" whilst wandering from 20 to 50 and across from one side of the road to the other.
orkneycadian
28-Feb-11, 21:06
If you're old enough to fight for your country, have a pint and go to jail for your crimes then you're responsible enough to drive.
Er.... road rollers, tracked vehicles, buses and lorries excepted.....
Er.... road rollers, tracked vehicles, buses and lorries excepted.....
Er.....my post was in response to Eddie suggesting the legal age to drive a car be raised to 25, as people below this age are not responsible enough.
Do try to keep up ;)
Hence having restrictors set above the limit to allow for overtaking but not so high that reckless speed can be used in low speed areas
so where do you set the restriction point then? would need to be 20mph really so you cant speed past a school at lunchtimes, you would be a bit of a hazard on the motorway eh
"No point in ramping up insurance, peeps will just go without insurance all together.
Very difficult to legislate and police a mix of ages and insurance groups that you could drive"
very easy to police, they police know if you are taxed, motd and insured at the touch of a button
"Maybe the insurance industry could sponsor a range of advanced driving lessons / tests. Make them cheap enough for people to take them up and then the benefits of cheaper insurance by being more proficient"
I think you are speaking of the pass plus course that has been available for years and had made little or no difference.
"This, for me, touches on the 'attitude' we have. I would imagine the majority of modern cars that are properly maintained will corner adequately at the appropriate speeds. My thoughts are the only need to modify your car for better cornering is to benefit from cornering faster"
Agreed all cars will be capable of cornering, adequate is open to interpretation though and what is the problem of cornering quicker as long as you are within the speed limit that applies to the road?
"Again, in my mind, the 'attitude'. When you lose control of the car your unlucky. No, the vehicle was not being driven appropriately for the conditions"
Again agreed, however I was talking of a specific black ice condition, black ice is notoriously difficult to spot until you are on it, then its too late. If it was reckless you would find the police prosecuting for crashing due to black ice. The morning I had the bump it was lashing rain and 4 degrees on the mercury which would negate frost as a risk, what I didnt think of at my crazy 20mph run was that it was colder earlier and the rain was on the black ice hence making the road a deathtrap. At least id I die tomorrow I can die thinking I lived life on the ragged edge
"I've seen plenty of 'mid life crisis' drivers too. Middle aged and whizzing around in a coupe trying to be 18 again.
And the elderly, blissfully trundling along "I've been driving 70 years and never had an accident" whilst wandering from 20 to 50 and across from one side of the road to the other"
Some of the most dangerous drivers I have seen are HGV's particularily left hand drive ones that dont see you in their blind spot
tonkatojo
28-Feb-11, 23:23
Hence having restrictors set above the limit to allow for overtaking but not so high that reckless speed can be used in low speed areas.
To my mind it makes the principal of restricting a vehicle void. The hgv is restricted to 56 and no more, why should private cars get different treatment if it only encourages the "limit" to be broken. The system I advocate could be be monitored and when dangerous conditions such as ice fog and what have you the sensors could "limit" to a safe speed limit, no ifs or buts.
your system would cost millions to implement and would cause uproar from every petrolhead in the uk
Put all learner drivers and anyone who has to resit their test through a crash simulator...not telling them the speed it will crash at....anything from 5mph to 70mph will be on the "random" generator...(but it will only do low speed crashes less than 20mph) that will give them more respect for the car and speed!
Have a braking simulator where a cow, child or cat, or unexpected car on the wrong side of the road will run out infront of them at the speed limit..with the effect of the consequences
To my mind it makes the principal of restricting a vehicle void. The hgv is restricted to 56 and no more, why should private cars get different treatment if it only encourages the "limit" to be broken. The system I advocate could be be monitored and when dangerous conditions such as ice fog and what have you the sensors could "limit" to a safe speed limit, no ifs or buts.
so where do you set the restriction point then? would need to be 20mph really so you cant speed past a school at lunchtimes, you would be a bit of a hazard on the motorway eh
Tis only a suggestion. And I don't know where to set the restriction point, there has to be some scope for acceleration to overtake etc. a % more of the actual limit for the location? But it would prevent situations where some drivers blather through 30mph sections in excess of 60. Is there any need for a vehicle to do more than 100Mph on the road, or even 90?
(drifting now: HGV's need some sort of kickdown or temp' bypass on the restrictor to allow for overtaking. The 4 mile overtaking situation we see when one HGV passes another is crazy)
very easy to police, they police know if you are taxed, motd and insured at the touch of a buttonThey know the vehicle status but what of the driver without stopping everyone all the time.
How would the legislation work, purely age related? Years of experience? Still wont filter out a 60 yr old muppet.
I think you are speaking of the pass plus course that has been available for years and had made little or no difference.Something a bit more than that, and available for / pitched to all. Including skid pan training and similar. IAM type things too. (For those that have never (yet) lost control of a car at speed it may make them think about their speed more and help should the situation arise). Funding from the insurance industry to make it affordable and discounts on insurance for having done it and / or restrictions on cover.
Agreed all cars will be capable of cornering, adequate is open to interpretation though and what is the problem of cornering quicker as long as you are within the speed limit that applies to the road?But is it appropriate? Why the need for cornering quicker?
Do you see where I am coming from about the 'attitude'?
(I'm not singling you or anyone out BTW, I'm just as guilty. But there is a mentality that needs to change.)
Again agreed, however I was talking of a specific........I don't want to get into specific situations etc. keep it general, less bickering that way.
Some of the most dangerous drivers I have seen are HGV's particularily left hand drive ones that dont see you in their blind spotBeen there, got skittled by a trucker that didn't see me.
Put all learner drivers and anyone who has to resit their test through a crash simulator...not telling them the speed it will crash at....anything from 5mph to 70mph will be on the "random" generator...(but it will only do low speed crashes less than 20mph) that will give them more respect for the car and speed!
Have a braking simulator where a cow, child or cat, or unexpected car on the wrong side of the road will run out infront of them at the speed limit..with the effect of the consequences
How about everyone! Done similar on a 'skid pan' (modified car) where it replicates aquaplaning but at a random moment. You drive off and accelerate away, at some point 'it' decides your off! Quite interesting doing a load of 360's at 40 - 50 mph. Makes yer think!
I know a 20 year old with a subaru impreza running just short of 400bhp,that makes it capable of 180mph and 60mph in 4.8 seconds,he seems to be keeping it on the road just fine for somebody who has only had a license 18months..........
Why do so many people insist that their personal experience is so significant. Insurance companies knowthat the 20 year old you speak of is not the rule, but at most an exception.
northener
01-Mar-11, 10:07
Interesting thread.
I'd say that given the breadth of opinion posted here, it shows that it's not a straightforward subject.
Good posts.
A step in the right direction? Just reported:
Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610
I think the insurance industry needs some work too. A little transparency on how they rate drivers & vehicles. Also how they apply their pricing.
It is a commercial industry and I'm not one for regulating for the sake of regulating but some of their quotes and methods of calculation are just random. Quotations going up because you phone for them at a weekend!!??? What's that about??
A friend who has a class 1 / C+E woz getting quotes, at the time being a HGV driver as a profession. Insurance company A reduces his policy quote as he is more qualified & experienced than the average driver. Co' B increases his quote as driving for a work he therefore spends more time on the road and therefore at more risk of an accident.
Who is right? And why the difference?
But again, drifting from the main thread point.
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 11:17
Er.....my post was in response to Eddie suggesting the legal age to drive a car be raised to 25, as people below this age are not responsible enough
But there are plenty examples of higher ages having to be attained for driving higher risk vehicles. The road rollers, buses, lorries above being one example. Another is in the hire car industry. It varies from company to company, but some won't hire at all to under 21's, with some you have to be 23 to hire a certain category of vehicles, and with some you have to be 25 to hire certain vehicles. So restricting driving of certain vehicles on age is nothing new - Even our own driving laws recognise that more maturity is required to drive a lorry than a car, and more maturity to drive a motorbike than a moped.
Various cases above exemplify that insurance may not be a foolproof way to restrict young inexperienced drivers to low powered, small cars, but an extension of the current laws that we have should be do-able. No-one after all is complaining that it is unworkable to restrict driving a lorry to 21 years old +
Such restrictions would help stimulate the market for small, cheap, affordable cars - Something the newly passed drivers always complain about. Take the Citroen C1 example previously. Even a new one is just over 6.5k on the road, insurance group 1 and tax just £30 a year! An awful lot more affordable than Imprezza you think you're going to have to get when you pass to be "cool".
If you are limited on the insurance group of the vehicle is will be a pretty costly pathh to get your Impreza / Porsche / Evo or whatever you hope for.
You would be forced to buy and run several vehicles before you could buy the one you want. Going by the car hire industry exanple you would need to get one car from 17 to 21 then another from 21 to 23 another from 23 to 25 before you could buy your sports car at 25. Not so affordable now is it.
A C1 costs £6,500 assuming each stage of car costs 25% more than the previous and taking depreciation of 50% into account then the followign applies.
1st stage (17 to 21 yr old) £6500
Trade in value £3250
2nd stage (21 to 23 yr old) £8125 - £3250 = £4875 (cost to change)
Trade in value £4062.50
3rd stage (23 to 25 tr old) £10156.25 - £4062.50 = £6093.75 (cost to change)
Trade in value £5078.12
4th stage (unrestricted) £20,000-£5078.12 = £14,921.88 (cost to change)
Total cost = £32,390.63
So using my simple calculation we are lookign at an outlay of £17,500 just to get yourself to a point where you can buy a powerful car.
A new impreza will set you back around £20000 so to get your impreza you will need to shell out a total of £32,400, not really practicable or workable is it?
A better option would be a restrictor arrangement as per motorcycles where you can have whatever bike you like but a restrictor is applied to the bike to reduce the power to the required setting, that way you can look cool and comply with the old bill.
The argument for stabilising the market is fair but if the car industry cant make money then that is their problem not ours, on another tangent I am so sick of sob stories form here there an everywhere followed by a big handout to boost the industry.
I am sure if my company falls on hard times I will not be getting a bail out!!!
Such restrictions would help stimulate the market for small, cheap, affordable cars - Something the newly passed drivers always complain about. Take the Citroen C1 example previously. Even a new one is just over 6.5k on the road, insurance group 1 and tax just £30 a year! An awful lot more affordable than Imprezza you think you're going to have to get when you pass to be "cool".
Stimulate the market for cars? I don't know many 17 or 18 year olds that could stretch to £6.5k. As an apprentice, my first car cost £1500 and was nowhere near the cheapest of my friends cars.
Many families cannot afford 2 cars, and I think it would be foolish to prevent a 17 year old who's just passed their test from gaining experience simply because their parents own an estate or people carrier.
You keep going back to this example of an Imprezza. I don't know any young people with one of these, or even similar. A quick walk between the Comm and Top Joes will show you that the majority of youngsters cruising Thurso are doing so in little Saxo's, 106's etc, and not even the sporty models. Very few of these cars are less than 3 years old, some much older, so worth nowhere near the £6.5k you find acceptable.
Maybe there's more money in Orkney, I don't know, but I can assure you the vast majority of people I know who got their first car didn't have near that amount to spend.
You were well off mate, my first car was an Austin metro and cost me £850
5 days later one of my pals ploughed into the back of me in his "sporty" Orion Ghia injection (funded by mummy and daddy) luckily no one was injured
I am bemused by how some youngsters affore cars at several thousand pounds and then insure and run them to boot.
"Tis only a suggestion. And I don't know where to set the restriction point, there has to be some scope for acceleration to overtake etc. a % more of the actual limit for the location? But it would prevent situations where some drivers blather through 30mph sections in excess of 60. Is there any need for a vehicle to do more than 100Mph on the road, or even 90?"
You then have the probelm when you are trying to pass a car and he/she speeds up and leaves you stranded, I is amazing how many cars raise their speed by 5 to 10 mph when you are passing them, honestly speed restriction is a REALLY bad idea!!!
What about track days or if you venture to europe you can do 140mph in parts of europe if you like!!
"They know the vehicle status but what of the driver without stopping everyone all the time.
How would the legislation work, purely age related? Years of experience? Still wont filter out a 60 yr old muppet."
Aye both of those are tough ones, the police are equipped with (limited) brains that get a feeling for wether something is right or not, I used to get pulled over all the time when driving a sporty car down in Edinburgh or Glasgow as it looked like a possible stolen vehicle. i.e 4 young guys in a sporty car that is registered in Caithness
"Something a bit more than that, and available for / pitched to all. Including skid pan training and similar. IAM type things too. (For those that have never (yet) lost control of a car at speed it may make them think about their speed more and help should the situation arise). Funding from the insurance industry to make it affordable and discounts on insurance for having done it and / or restrictions on cover"
So the insurance costs will be rising again then will they, this wont fund itself, you and i will pay for it. how about skid training being part of the learner driver process and funded by them?
"But is it appropriate? Why the need for cornering quicker?
Do you see where I am coming from about the 'attitude'?
(I'm not singling you or anyone out BTW, I'm just as guilty. But there is a mentality that needs to change.)"
But why is is not appropriate? why not corner a bit quicker if you and your car are capable of it safely?
"I don't want to get into specific situations etc. keep it general, less bickering that way."
You were quite specific stating that if you are off the road then you are reckless end of. have you ever bumped a kerb when parking?
"Been there, got skittled by a trucker that didn't see me."
Luckily never happened to me (touch wood) I try and pass them as fast as possible, its the time exposed to danger thing and another reason why speed restriction is a really bad idea, there will be loads of cars stuck at 60 trying to pass a lorry stuck at 56 its a no brainer, people will die as a result.
tonkatojo
01-Mar-11, 12:49
your system would cost millions to implement and would cause uproar from every petrolhead in the uk
Aye but it is the only solution that would stop accidents as was asked in the initial post. No "ifs or buts" just the rules being obeyed.
It wouldnt stop accidents, It would stop speeding.
I have never been involved in an accident due to speeding, I have been in a few due to stupidity though.
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 13:11
Stimulate the market for cars? I don't know many 17 or 18 year olds that could stretch to £6.5k. As an apprentice, my first car cost £1500 and was nowhere near the cheapest of my friends cars.
Yes, but don't forget that if there are more new cars going about (funded by mater and pater), then there comes to be a lot more of them on the 2nd hand market as they move up to higher group cars as they get older / more experienced.
Many families cannot afford 2 cars, and I think it would be foolish to prevent a 17 year old who's just passed their test from gaining experience simply because their parents own an estate or people carrier.
Then its status quo then. "Sorry our son / daughter has run over your son / daughter in our family M3, but we couldnt afford to buy them a low powered runaround...."
You keep going back to this example of an Imprezza. I don't know any young people with one of these, or even similar. A quick walk between the Comm and Top Joes will show you that the majority of youngsters cruising Thurso are doing so in little Saxo's, 106's etc, and not even the sporty models. Very few of these cars are less than 3 years old, some much older, so worth nowhere near the £6.5k you find acceptable.
Maybe there's more money in Orkney, I don't know, but I can assure you the vast majority of people I know who got their first car didn't have near that amount to spend.
Quite a number of them over here, as well as a Mitusbishi Evolution, a Skyline and a number of Honda Civic R's and the like. But its not just the car, its the modifications and the "image". I think its gone from here now but there was some modified hatchback with exhaust tailpipe(s) at least 8" in diameter over here. [lol] I guess the area of the exhaust valves would have been an awful lot less, so the tailpipe "trumpet" would effectively be useless, and the car would likely just have the same amount of go in it as the standard version of the car before it got butchered. But that didn't stop the driver of it racing round the town like a loony, and probably participating in races on the straight country roads as well.
Another example recently was a Peugot 106 or 205 or something buried in something else at the roundabout near the pierhead / nightclub in Kirkwall. Not an Imprezza either, but one that was being run around the town ragged by someone unable to control it on a roundabout. Sure, a group 1 1 litre Citroen C1 (how many ones can I get in a sentence I wonder?) could do the same, but if you were legally restricted to one, unmodified, it would certainly tame the "showing off" spirit that prevails. Particularly if coupled with driving curfews for young drivers, another fact of life we have with some insurance companies, so not "pie in the sky"
I have never been involved in an accident due to speeding, I have been in a few due to stupidity though.
Now you have hit the nail on the head !!
I wonder how many accidents are caused through sheer stupidity?......And isnt speeding when its not safe stupidity?
Theres only one answer to this thread now......Keep all stupid idiots off the road for good!!!....Problem solved !!
C3....:roll:;)
one answer education thats is all thats needed.
oh anh orkneycadiam are you a citreon salesman. I nearly bought a C1 myself but all the bloody boy racers are buying them now
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 13:34
Since when has education worked over legislation? How many years were we "educated" that we should wear seatbelts, before legislation had to come in to make it work. Same with using mobiles behind wheels, drinking and driving, speeding, etc etc..... All of the above are controlled to a certain extent by legislation, after simply asking folk nicely and educating them failed miserably....
tonkatojo
01-Mar-11, 13:35
It wouldnt stop accidents, It would stop speeding.
I have never been involved in an accident due to speeding, I have been in a few due to stupidity though.
There's not much bar education for the daft accidents, but it would eradicate the speeding ones, as they say every little helps.
By jove ive got it.
Ban the motor car
That will eradicate drink driving, speeding, wreckless driving, careless driving, and every other motoring offence you care to mention
Plus it will bolster the public transport services to boot.
We will all save a fortune on MOT's, Insurance, depreciation, running costas and what have you.
On a side note you are driving along the causewaymire at 61mph a deer runs out in front of you and you hit it, is that a speeding accident, bad luck or a stupidity accident?
Metalattakk
01-Mar-11, 14:11
On a side note you are driving along the causewaymire at 61mph a deer runs out in front of you and you hit it, is that a speeding accident, bad luck or a stupidity accident?
That's called 'fetching lunch'. ;)
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 14:18
On a side note you are driving along the causewaymire at 61mph a deer runs out in front of you and you hit it, is that a speeding accident, bad luck or a stupidity accident?
Lack of observation / failure to anticipate the road ahead, coupled with driving too fast for the conditions. The same would be the case if it happened at 59 mph.
honestly speed restriction is a REALLY bad idea!!!
What about track days or if you venture to europe you can do 140mph in parts of europe if you like!!I was thinking of a system that would recognise the zone the car was in and allowing for overtaking etc. I'm sure the technology is there and the cost wouldn't be huge but making it work and be accepted would be a nightmare. OK we'll move on from that little chestnut.
Aye both of those are tough ones, the police are equipped with (limited) brains that get a feeling for wether.......The ANPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition) system is good for checking out cars and their status, doesn't identify the driver and their licence conditions though. (yet[para])
I think trying to legislate for age v BHP would be complex and hard to enforce.
So the insurance costs will be rising again then will they, this wont fund itself, you and i will pay for it. how about skid training being part of the learner driver process and funded by them?My thoughts are based on 'investment' by the insurers & gubbyment. I agree, skid training (and more) should be part of the training, as should minimum no' of hours, with & without instructor. Currency checks every 10 years etc.
Going back to the insurance funded training. Insurance co's subsidise and encourage extra driver training and development thus making it more accessible, and with your additional training you get reductions in insurance premiums. They get better, less riskier drivers. (across all ages, regardless of when the original test was passed)
Couple this with education and a 'drive' to change peoples mindsets we, over time, get better more responsible and experienced drivers (at all ages) and hopefully accidents will fall. Less accidents equals less cost to insurers and the NHS, emergency services etc. And saves lives!
But why is is not appropriate? why not corner a bit quicker if you and your car are capable of it safely?But why the need for speed? What is 'driving' our mindset to do things faster?
You were quite specific stating that if you are off the road then you are reckless end of. have you ever bumped a kerb when parking?No, I never said that, or anything like it. I picked up on your view (being a common point of view) that hitting black ice (or similar) and loosing control was bad luck.
I wouldn't go as far as reckless anyway. Reckless, in my mind, is when there are a number of intentional factors coming into play.
I would say an error of judgement or oversight or lack of planning. I wasn't being specific to that incident, I was trying to generalise on the mindset / attitude many of us have when there is an accident or similar.
The recent cold spell saw cars skittled off the road all over the place, "oh bad luck" we'd say "poor whoever, its this weather, the council didn't grit enough" etc. etc. etc.
I'm afraid that I think a lot of these types of incidents are down to not driving appropriately for the conditions, or not being fully aware of the conditions (or potential conditions).
Yes I've bumped a kerb when parking, wasn't paying enough attention.
Also lost it on black ice, not long after passing my test. I was going too fast for the conditions.
Also lost it a few years back on black ice, after a lot more experience and various driver training courses etc. I was doing 10mph!! Still ended up doing a full 360! I was going too fast for the conditions!
Again, all this isn't helped when you do slow down for weather (and other) situations, you get people up yer erse trying to 'push' you faster.
By jove ive got it. Ban the motor carNow your just being silly, what we need is a little man walking in front of each car waving a flag to warn everybody. Now that's the future!!:Razz
Your right that wouldnt cost millions implement it would be billions.
The age and/or experience Vs BHP is currently in place with motorcyclists I cant see how that system couldnt be rolled out to cars, it isnt intended to stop speeding or anything it is all about giving the rider a chance to gain experience of riding a motorcycle without letting them loose on a 180mph mental machine. you can however buy and ride a 180mph machine its just that it will be restricted to 33bhp or whatever the limit is until you reach the required experience level to be let loose with it. Expanding this will allow cruiser Kevin to get his sporty wee honda or bmw or whatever but he would have it electronically or mechanically restricted to a predetermined power level. the cost of the restriction would be placed on cruiser Kevin and the insurance company would demand the certificate stating that the vehicle is restricted also in the event of young Kev crashing or whatever the restrictor could be verified as still being in place, if it has been removed then so will his licence for several years to allow him to reflect on his stupidity..simples.
In fact I think I will get my head down and invent this device now. make a fortune and buy that Porsche I have always dreamed of.
Have you been asleep for the past few years, the country is on the brink of collapse and you would like the government to invest millions to train people to drive properly, if you want to learn to drive the cost of the training should firmly land on the trainees shoulders.
The point I am trying to amke is what is the problem with cornering quickly if you are within the confines of the law, your car and your skills next you will be having reduced speed limits applied to every corner.
Lack of observation / failure to anticipate the road ahead, coupled with driving too fast for the conditions. The same would be the case if it happened at 59 mph.
Deer are very partial to leaping from the side of the road out of nowhere, now I dont know about you but when I am driving I am totally focussed on the road ahead of me, behind me and and side roads or openings what I am not doing is scannign every field aroundabout looking for deer or horses or whatever that may jump out on me. Add night driving to the list and next we will have spotlights scanning the fields. I dont think there is any charge for failure to anticipate the road ahead. perhaps I was too vague with my scenario In my head it was a lovely clear night with no rain and good visibility, I fail to see how you could be accused of driving too fast.
Anyways my question was is it one of the following:
a) Speeding incident
b) Bad luck
c) Stupidity
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 16:37
Your choices are a bit limiting....
Speeding incident? Partly, as you were unable to stop in a safe distance given the conditions. Chances are, there are signs somewhere on that road warning of deer. If you were driving too fast to be able to stop before hitting the deer, then you were driving too fast for the conditions.
Bad luck? Only if the deer managed to completely evade being seen until it jumped out on a bit of clear road. Knowing the Causeymire, theres not that many bits of cover for it, so luck doesnt really come into it.
Stupidity? You don't mention deer or driver. For the deer, its not the smartest move it ever made, but lets assume we are talking about the driver. If the driver had passed a sign warning of deer, and the deer was visible at the side of the road before it made its leap of faith, then yes, I think the driver was stupid for;
Not carrying out enough observation
Not reading the road and the changing conditions far enough ahead for the speed he/she was doing
Driving too fast for the conditions
I have driven the A9 through the night many a time, and yes, it was tiring scouring the sides of the road looking for eyes glinting back in the lights (not near Portgower before someone mentions it) and adjusting speed accordingly in case anything jumps out. On some runs, I have seen 6 or more deer lurking at the roadside in the middle of the night, half of which probably on the Causeymire.
I drive the road week in week out and at 4:30am you are not seeing a deer boundign toward the roadside.
If you pass a sign warning of deer or landslide or whatever what distance is the warning valid for. i.e a sign on the thurso end of the causewaymire is it still valid at spittal, latheron or helmsdale even how about perth.
Most weeks I see a lot more than 6 dee at the roadside.
totally agree that if it was on the verge then fine but they will bound out of the hill or wherever and literally appear out of nowhere.
You usually see the 1st deer.
Its the one standing innocently beside the road.
Its the 2nd one bounding over to its pal (appearing as if from nowhere)that is the one to look out for before you hit it.
On a side note you are driving along the causewaymire at 61mph a deer runs out in front of you and you hit it, is that a speeding accident, bad luck or a stupidity accident?
That would be bad luck, assuming it appeared out of 'nowhere' and in close proximity, as it would be the deers fault. However they don't carry 3rd party so your unlucky!
that is my thinking, seems only you and I think that is the case
Your choices are a bit limiting....
Speeding incident? Partly, as you were unable to stop in a safe distance given the conditions. Chances are, there are signs somewhere on that road warning of deer. If you were driving too fast to be able to stop before hitting the deer, then you were driving too fast for the conditions.
Bad luck? Only if the deer managed to completely evade being seen until it jumped out on a bit of clear road. Knowing the Causeymire, theres not that many bits of cover for it, so luck doesnt really come into it.
Stupidity? You don't mention deer or driver. For the deer, its not the smartest move it ever made, but lets assume we are talking about the driver. If the driver had passed a sign warning of deer, and the deer was visible at the side of the road before it made its leap of faith, then yes, I think the driver was stupid for;
Not carrying out enough observation
Not reading the road and the changing conditions far enough ahead for the speed he/she was doing
Driving too fast for the conditions
I have driven the A9 through the night many a time, and yes, it was tiring scouring the sides of the road looking for eyes glinting back in the lights (not near Portgower before someone mentions it) and adjusting speed accordingly in case anything jumps out. On some runs, I have seen 6 or more deer lurking at the roadside in the middle of the night, half of which probably on the Causeymire.
On a similar line then if you are again driving along the causewaymire on a fine evening with good visibility and dry roads at 56mph. you see a car travelling down a side road from westerdale to the A9, the car on the side road is obviously slowing for the junction ahead of them, suddenly when you are 50m away they pull out and you hit them.
Is this scenario
A)Your fault
B)their fault
C)partial fault
Your choice and reasoning please
Have huge compulsory excesses on young drivers to make them think more carefully about driving with care. £3k insurance premium and a £1k excess would help instil some care into the driving!
That would be a pretty average quote for a 17 yr old for a Peugeot 106
Kids don't act any differently now than we did, except we had souped up Minis or our dads Morris Oxford.
That would be a pretty average quote for a 17 yr old for a Peugeot 106
Kids don't act any differently now than we did, except we had souped up Minis or our dads Morris Oxford.
exactly, there was accidents then and there are accidents now
In fact I would say that the amount of cruisers in Thurso is way less than when I did it.
Some nights george square traffic lights would be queued back to the chipper. I would say the mega cost of fuel is the reason for that, cheaper to go out on the drink now
....... he would have it electronically or mechanically restricted to a predetermined power level. the cost of the restriction would be placed on cruiser Kevin and the insurance company would demand the certificate..........
Have you been asleep for the past few years, the country is on the brink of collapse and you would like the government to invest millions to train people to drive properly, if you want to learn to drive the cost of the training should firmly land on the trainees shoulders.Normally asleep behind the wheel. Were you asleep fer this: "on 'investment' by the insurers & gubbyment." "Going back to the insurance funded training"
Forcing everyone who has a car to take it to the garage and pay to have a restrictor fitted and then get them to pay for training & testing to go back and pay again to get said restrictor removed. On an already impoverished car user! Not popular me thinks.
UK gov't funds road safety campaigns etc. anyway. The longer term potential would recoup costs by reducing accidents. The average fatal ramps up to over £1.3M per accident. Never mind the actual loss of life.
Pricey linky 1 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/11/18548/29231)
Pricey linky 2 (http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/What_Does_a_Road_Accident_Cost.htm)
If changes are to be made there has to be some support, hitting drivers with huge costs isn't going to get support.
The insurance industry stand to benefit the most so they can invest the most, the gov't can top it off. But after all it is only one of my harebrained schemes.
(the £300m of 'aid' to India could be redirected ferra start.)
The point I am trying to amke is what is the problem with cornering quickly if you are within the confines of the law, your car and your skills next you will be having reduced speed limits applied to every corner.
The point I'm trying to make is why do we want to go quicker? Why do we want to modify our cars to go faster? (all legally of course).
Why this craving for speed when the statistics show that speed, if not a direct cause, is a contributory cause to serious / fatal accidents.
(the £300m of 'aid' to India could be redirected ferra start.)
That's a ridiculous suggestion.
How could India afford to fund it's space program and nuclear weapons if it had to feed its poor?
Normally asleep behind the wheel. Were you asleep fer this: "on 'investment' by the insurers & gubbyment." "Going back to the insurance funded training"
Forcing everyone who has a car to take it to the garage and pay to have a restrictor fitted and then get them to pay for training & testing to go back and pay again to get said restrictor removed. On an already impoverished car user! Not popular me thinks.
UK gov't funds road safety campaigns etc. anyway. The longer term potential would recoup costs by reducing accidents. The average fatal ramps up to over £1.3M per accident. Never mind the actual loss of life.
Pricey linky 1 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/11/18548/29231)
Pricey linky 2 (http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/What_Does_a_Road_Accident_Cost.htm)
If changes are to be made there has to be some support, hitting drivers with huge costs isn't going to get support.
The insurance industry stand to benefit the most so they can invest the most, the gov't can top it off. But after all it is only one of my harebrained schemes.
(the £300m of 'aid' to India could be redirected ferra start.)
I never suggested that everyone would have a restricted car or face training, heaven forbid the day they do that I will rap in this poxy thirld world counrty.
My suggestion was that all new drivers would run a restricted car and have to complete training as they already do by way of a driving test.
Insurance companies are profit making ventures not charitable organizations, I think if they are forced to run or contribute to safety training the costs will be directly added to our premiums.
Interesting if not somewhat outdated figures you linked to there an interesting part is that 71% of the £1.3m price tag is allocated to human costs which equates to "pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends in the case of injuries " surely this is a finger in the air figure and not cold hard cash.
The point I'm trying to make is why do we want to go quicker? Why do we want to modify our cars to go faster? (all legally of course).
Why this craving for speed when the statistics show that speed, if not a direct cause, is a contributory cause to serious / fatal accidents.
Why do people drink, smoke, take drugs, fight, have sex, fly, skydive, mountain bike, run etc etc etc etc
Because they want to!!!
OK, if were not going to do something to try and target all drivers only new drivers then it's a long time before any change will be apparent.
And so were back to restricting cars based on the length of time a licence has been held.
Why do people drink, smoke, take drugs, fight, have sex, fly, skydive, mountain bike, run etc etc etc etc
Because they want to!!!
:);)
..........
OK, if were not going to do something to try and target all drivers only new drivers then it's a long time before any change will be apparent.
And so were back to restricting cars based on the length of time a licence has been held.
I see no benefit in trying to teach old dogs new tricks, its the inexperienced drivers that need to learn. I recently took an advanced driving lesson and the only tips they gave me that I didnt already practice was how to drive a bit more economically and wait for it.......how to better position my car to carry more speed through the corners and as such less speed adjustment and/or gear changes and as such better mpg that last tip gave me a huge mpg improvement.
It seems so... however the important thing is power restriction not speed restriction and also not for years on end. i would say a 3 to 4 year restriction is sufficient to gain experience.
The point I'm trying to make is why do we want to go quicker? Why do we want to modify our cars to go faster? (all legally of course).
Why this craving for speed when the statistics show that speed, if not a direct cause, is a contributory cause to serious / fatal accidents.
There is a theory that attributes some of this to a lack of risk in play for the very young. It appears that where children are not allowed or encouraged to play and take risks as a child they do not develop the skills to assess danger and so get in a fast car and just drivewith no understanding of how to weigh up the chances of an accident. Kids need to scare themselves and they need to push the boundaries of their safe environment in order to learn how far they can go. Apparently xboxes and computers don't quite do it.
tremendous post, too much cotton wool used these days in our PC society
tremendous post, too much cotton wool used these days in our PC society
But there is nothing new here. Young men have been killing themselves in cars since Mr Benz first picked up a spanner.
Or is that Mr Daimler?
its the inexperienced drivers that need to learn.'It's not me it's them'
Bingo!
'It's not me it's them'
Bingo!
???? sorry fella dont follow
I thought the entire thread was about young men crashing cars.
So reading between the lines you are suggesting that we need to educate the entrie motoring nation of the UK.
Can I have some of whatever you have been taking please?
There is a good reason why drivers under the age of 25 pay an inflated premium, because they are the highest risk bracket!!!
neilsermk1
02-Mar-11, 13:54
Being allowed to drive is seen as a right, and not a privelige these days. The driving test standards in this country are set at a very low level (no night driving element for example). The test requirements for a motorcycle licence are much more stringent, and over the last 25 years led to an "overall" percentage reduction in injuries and fatalities.
It is about time the car test was aligned in the same way.
In fact as a biker I would advocate that all potential drivers should spend at least 6 months on a motorbike before they were even allowed to start training for a car licence.
This might stop clowns in cars trying to kill me each time i take the bike out. Additionally the experience driving on 2 wheels, and having to understand road conditions can do nothing but help.
Rant over.
Being allowed to drive is seen as a right, and not a privelige these days. The driving test standards in this country are set at a very low level (no night driving element for example). The test requirements for a motorcycle licence are much more stringent, and over the last 25 years led to an "overall" percentage reduction in injuries and fatalities.
It is about time the car test was aligned in the same way.
I don't disagree with that, the car test could be made a lot more stringent and could improve safety.
I don't know how easy it would be to install a compulsary night driving element though, people doing their test in July would have to wait until midnight to do it!
In fact as a biker I would advocate that all potential drivers should spend at least 6 months on a motorbike before they were even allowed to start training for a car licence.
This might stop clowns in cars trying to kill me each time i take the bike out. Additionally the experience driving on 2 wheels, and having to understand road conditions can do nothing but help.
Rant over.
I disagree with that though. Forcing people onto a statistically more dangerous vehicle is a bit extreme, even if you do think it would improve their experience.
orkneycadian
02-Mar-11, 15:14
I don't know how easy it would be to install a compulsary night driving element though, people doing their test in July would have to wait until midnight to do it!
Seems odd you can get away without an essential part of driving just because your test was at the wrong time of year! Same as how you can not be tested on traffic lights, roundabouts, motorways, dual carriageways, driving in rain, driving in snow, driving in really busy traffic, etc etc, due to where and when you sit your test. Not much of a test really when you think about it.... :confused
Being allowed to drive is seen as a right, and not a privelige these days. The driving test standards in this country are set at a very low level (no night driving element for example). The test requirements for a motorcycle licence are much more stringent, and over the last 25 years led to an "overall" percentage reduction in injuries and fatalities.
It is about time the car test was aligned in the same way.
In fact as a biker I would advocate that all potential drivers should spend at least 6 months on a motorbike before they were even allowed to start training for a car licence.
This might stop clowns in cars trying to kill me each time i take the bike out. Additionally the experience driving on 2 wheels, and having to understand road conditions can do nothing but help.
Rant over.
I would say drivign is a right, provided you can meet the minimum driving standards and then apply this throughout your motoring life then you have the right to drive a motor vehicle.
I think I have been here already, what about the 10 to 15 years spend on a bicycle in most cases. Surely that is experience enough of the two wheeled variety.
Seems odd you can get away without an essential part of driving just because your test was at the wrong time of year! Same as how you can not be tested on traffic lights, roundabouts, motorways, dual carriageways, driving in rain, driving in snow, driving in really busy traffic, etc etc, due to where and when you sit your test. Not much of a test really when you think about it.... :confused
Maybe the driving test should be moved to ontario or somewhere where all of the above can be experienced, maybe not there though as its the wrong side of the road, I jest. I think skid training should definately become part of the test process.
QUADBIKER
02-Mar-11, 20:48
have been watching this thread with much interest, it seems to be that the finger is getting pointed at young drivers mostly, unless young people drive how are they suppossed to gain experience. what about all of the experienced drivers who are involved in rtc's, by the way they are no longer classed as rta's, why should all youngsters be tarred with the same brush, there are alot of young people out there who do pay due care and attention and there are some who don't. on the other hand there are alot of experienced drivers who pay due care and attention and once again there are some that don't. but we must remember it is not just on the roads that there is accidents and deaths they happen everyday in the common working man's life.
What about having to pass an arbitrary psychological profile before you are deemed fit to drive? I recon we could take about 85% of drivers off the road.
Dog-eared
02-Mar-11, 22:38
That would be bad luck, assuming it appeared out of 'nowhere' and in close proximity, as it would be the deers fault. However they don't carry 3rd party so your unlucky!
Oh Deer, You've obviously not been up here long enough to have had a close encounter of the deer kind. "Nowhere " is exactly right.They blend in well due to their colouring (surprise ! ) and DO leap out on you from anywhere !
"Close proximity " - I had a roe deer jump over my car bonnet on a slow lane just outside Thurso.
Deer, Deer. Some of these drivers know nothing....:D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
With regards to an earlier post - yes, what you learn as a child prepares you for life. A good life for a child should have real experiences, not false ones.
Falling out of trees, getting soaked by waves, climbing things, it leads to failure sometimes, but it is the trying ,failing or succeeding in a real world of pain or dissapointment, of joy and pleasure that matters.
Not being denied the outdoor experiences ( where kids should be ) and fed on TV from an early age -plopped in front of the TV ('cos that's what they want ) .
Then bought a PS3 or XBox to further their video gaming world where at 15 years old , falling off a cliff means nothing more than a 15second reset of the game to " start again " rather than an embarassing trip to the hospital for 3 stitches ( as I did ) and a big slice of EXPERIENCE in the real world.
Racing driving games , used for a few years and hundreds of hours as a teen must affect your driving expectations and ability to learn driving on the roads..
IE -It's just like the Xbox, and I have 200+ hours on my Xbox racing game!
Nothing bites like real life, which is the pleasure of it.
But when it's "game over" in real life, That. Is. It.
Dog-eared
02-Mar-11, 23:33
PS
I have a bike that will do XXX mph, and have had it flat out, on numerous occasions . I'm not a spoilsport, just realistic.:D
Mebbe I'm a safer driver becaused I worked my way up from low powered bikes. Plus starting on bikes you are very aware of road surfaces and other vehicles.
have been watching this thread with much interest, it seems to be that the finger is getting pointed at young drivers mostly, unless young people drive how are they suppossed to gain experience. what about all of the experienced drivers who are involved in rtc's, by the way they are no longer classed as rta's, why should all youngsters be tarred with the same brush, there are alot of young people out there who do pay due care and attention and there are some who don't. on the other hand there are alot of experienced drivers who pay due care and attention and once again there are some that don't. but we must remember it is not just on the roads that there is accidents and deaths they happen everyday in the common working man's life.
I thought they were now called: RTI - road traffic incident
?
I think it is RTC - road traffic collision ?
Oh Deer, You've obviously not been up here long enough to have had a close encounter of the deer kindIs bouncing off me car close enough??
(they also have deer in Ingerlandershire too!)
What about having to pass an arbitrary psychological profile before you are deemed fit to drive? I recon we could take about 85% of drivers off the road.
Me and you included, otherwise a cracking idea.
So reading between the lines you are suggesting that we need to educate the entrie motoring nation of the UK.I didn't think I was putting that between the lines, but yes!
I was looking at the original post which didn't specify age or sex. Over 60's seem to have specific issues and the under 30's have different issues. In between seems not too bad but I've seen willyheads of all ages and sex on the roads.
Can I have some of whatever you have been taking please?If I could bottle bigoted, opinionated idiot I'd be very rich! :Razz
Thinking this through...the statistics (or damn lies) put under 30's (mostly male) at the higher 'risk' end. So if we changed the test & syllabus tomorrow we've still got a population of 17 - 30 year old drivers needing "experience" or whatever. I would guess this'd be 1 maybe nearly 2 million (???) people!!
So my approach would include constant development & education of all drivers.
I didn't think I was putting that between the lines, but yes!
I was looking at the original post which didn't specify age or sex. Over 60's seem to have specific issues and the under 30's have different issues. In between seems not too bad but I've seen willyheads of all ages and sex on the roads.
If I could bottle bigoted, opinionated idiot I'd be very rich! :Razz
Thinking this through...the statistics (or damn lies) put under 30's (mostly male) at the higher 'risk' end. So if we changed the test & syllabus tomorrow we've still got a population of 17 - 30 year old drivers needing "experience" or whatever. I would guess this'd be 1 maybe nearly 2 million (???) people!!
So my approach would include constant development & education of all drivers.
I hope you are not suggesting I am a bigot.
So are you suggesting that the stats have been manipulated to appear like young males are the bigest risk on the roads. This is quite the conspiracy theory you are developing here.
In a perfect world your proposal holds water, however you havent given a valid proposal of how to fund this monsterous excercise.
Government is skint and Insurance companies are a business, hence wouldnt be willing to participate unless forced.
northener
03-Mar-11, 09:23
It's a big subject, isn't it?;)
There's no one 'magic bullet' that will cure all the problems discussed in this thread and it's certainly too big a subject for me to comment on all the points raised.
So I'll start off with what I know most about - driver training and the DSA test.
Someone asked a couple of questions earlier in the thread asking if the ADI's were teaching people to drive 'properly' - or just to pass a driving test?
The answer is both.
We have to teach people to drive in accordance with the DSA's set criteria - which is a set standard on all aspects of driving. The reasoning being that if you don't teach to the DSA standards - they won't pass the test. Simple.
So we are teaching to pass a test, in the same way schools teach to pass exams - no different.
But....we should be teaching drivers to think independantly about how they drive. I'm not convinced that this is happening in some cases. And we certainly shouldn't be getting them to slavishly follow test routes - unless we fully expect our students to spend the rest of their lives trundling round on a fixed circuit....:roll: That definitely is purely teaching to pass a test.
A decent driver (even a new driver) should be able to cope with any route thrown at them. There's no such thing as a 'difficult' junction or a 'dangerous' bend if they've been trained up and coached properly and are doing what they know they should be doing properly.
Is the test fit for purpose? Mostly I'd say 'yes'. But it isn't comprehensive enough.
I would prefer to see something along the lines of a two-part test as is now used with motorbikes. The first section would be covering all the set manouvers off-road (after suitable onroad training). After sucessfully passing this I would like to see an extended test of around an hour (as opposed to the present 35-40 mins), incorporating two of the previously done manouvers 'live' on the road and an emergency stop.
Retests? Definitely. A 45 minute appraisal after 2 years for new drivers - followed by retest for sub-standard drivers. Then a 15 year half hour appraisal, with a re-test to follow if the Examiner feels their driving is sub-standard.
The thing is we all can get "cocky" while behind the wheel,and new drivers arent immune to that,I remember when I passed my test...many moons ago :) that I was after a short while quite cocky behind the wheel,until I got a great big damn fright,then my attitude changed and has never gone back to cockiness,some people dont get that second chance though :(.As for insurance,well it is very expensive,sometimes pricing people out iof being able to drive,so therefore they dont get the experince needed,so its a cause of damned if you do,damned if you dont really! My first car when I passed my test was a 3 litre capri,bought for £250,cost £1000 to insure....third party!!!Would I allow my son such a powerful car when just passed...not a hope in hell,but when I passed my test nobody batted an eyelid to my powerful beast of a car,tell you one thing though,I learnt how to drive properly pretty quick behind the wheel of that thing! x
I hope you are not suggesting I am a bigot.Not at all, a jibe firmly aimed at myself!
So are you suggesting that the stats have been manipulated to appear like young males are the bigest risk on the roads. This is quite the conspiracy theory you are developing here.Aaaaarrrrrgghhhh, fer crissake don't mention the C word, you'll 'ave 'em all at it. Banging on about masons, biderberg group & the CIA.
In a perfect world your proposal holds water, however you havent given a valid proposal of how to fund this monsterous excercise.
Government is skint and Insurance companies are a business, hence wouldnt be willing to participate unless forced.In my mind I believe the investment from the Ins' co's could be argued. Longterm it would benefit them if they reduce their risk, ultimately cost. Even input from the Gov't would ultimately show a return (they're not going to be skint forever, Davey will have it all tickety boo by the next election won't he?:eek:)
certainly too big a subject for me to comment onWhat d'you know anyway!! :Razz
But....we should be teaching drivers to think independantly about how they drive. I'm not convinced that this is happening in some cases. And we certainly shouldn't be getting them to slavishly follow test routes..........
A decent driver (even a new driver) should be able to cope with any route thrown at them. There's no such thing as a 'difficult' junction or a 'dangerous' bend if they've been trained up and coached properly and are doing what they know they should be doing properly.These are issues I've seen. Drivers lacking confidence 'cos they've been shovelled through the test route and nothing else so when they come to motorways and 'busier' roads they can end up going too slow for the conditions and making stupid, basic errors because they haven't been shown to deal with the situation. (too slow can infuriate other drivers and they in turn do something silly to get past)
I knew of instructors putting marks on the windows and other silly things to ensure/help the student would pass, which is great until they step into a different car and the perspective is different. ( I would hope a lot of these types of instructors have been weeded out now)
I learnt how to drive properly pretty quick behind the wheel of that thing!How do you know it's properly?? (slippery beggars on the back end them Capris)
Retests? Definitely.We all think we are the best driver, we know better than all the other idiots on the road. C'mon, admit it...most of us do. We sit there and mutter when the idiot in front goes too slow, we whine about the maniac that overtakes and goes too fast.
But the reality is the majority of drivers have had no official or professional input into our driving since passing our test x years ago. We may have driven for xx years without an accident, or driven powerful & modified cars without incident.
But it doesn't mean our standards are good enough.
How many of us could take a driving test (including theory test) right now and pass 100%.
(We should in theory after a few years pass 100%)
Over a period of years I have taken additional driver training & tests of various forms plus gained a few years, and many miles of experience in different vehicles, countries and conditions. Including skid pan training, firey engines, polis motorway network, offroad (& onroad with 4X4's) and different vehicle class's and types.
On a recent evaluation I managed to be an average driver. (AVERAGE!!! The cheeky twerp, what does he know, the infarction idiot.)
This worries me, greatly. If I'm thinking I'm the best driver having had additional training, what does that make all those who've done nothing since their tests. And they think they're the best driver!:eek:
Over 150 posts of verbose and nebulous rhetoric.
Solution:
1 - The Police need to enforce the existing laws - don't need any new ones.
2 - The Public need to regard loutish/dangerous/reckless driving as socially unacceptable.
Solution:
1 - The Police need to enforce the existing laws - don't need any new ones.
2 - The Public need to regard loutish/dangerous/reckless driving as socially unacceptable.
Well said!
Blazing Sporrans
03-Mar-11, 14:03
Solution:
1 - The Police need to enforce the existing laws - don't need any new ones.
2 - The Public need to regard loutish/dangerous/reckless driving as socially unacceptable.
I'd agree with this chordie the only difference being I'd reverse the order of precedence.
Over 150 posts of verbose and nebulous rhetoric.
Solution:
1 - The Police need to enforce the existing laws - don't need any new ones.
2 - The Public need to regard loutish/dangerous/reckless driving as socially unacceptable.
Right on the mark!
northener
03-Mar-11, 17:30
Over 150 posts of verbose and nebulous rhetoric.
Solution:
1 - The Police need to enforce the existing laws - don't need any new ones.
2 - The Public need to regard loutish/dangerous/reckless driving as socially unacceptable.
So are saying that better driver education and improvements to how we asess whether drivers are fit to be let loose on their own are not to be considered?
TBH, Enforcement never worked on me when I was a young muppet on a motorbike. Speeding tickets, being pulled and given a rollicking on many occasions, banned for being on a motorway on a provisional licence, drink driving, no helmet...blah, blah,blah....none of those things made a blind bit of difference to me. I was a 'good' rider with 'quick reactions' :roll: - and no-one could tell me any different.
Am I proud of it? No. Am I lucky to be alive? Definitely yes.
I'm not saying enforcement is pointless, but I am saying that making people more aware of how their behaviour affects not only themselves but also those around them is the way forward - coupled with better driver training and education.
Then nail the idiots.:Razz
the Police do enforce the laws of the road.
If there is any law that is enforced it is the road traffic act
It is a criminal act to speed, the car does not speed the driver does that. It makes no difference what the make or modifications to the car the person in charge of the car either uses it as a safe mode of transport or as a possible lethal weapon. There was a time when drunk driving was socially acceptable but thank goodness not today and the sooner speeding is regarded in the same way the sooner we will all be safer on the roads. The police presence on the roads throughout the county needs to be increased until criminality of the roads is reduced, that worked for drunk driving all over the country and no reason why it would not work for bad driving and speeding within the county.
After having read the many replies I would add that anyone fined for any infringement of the traffic laws should also have to resit a driving test before being allowed on the road again.
After having read the many replies I would add that anyone fined for any infringement of the traffic laws should also have to resit a driving test before being allowed on the road again.
A tad harsh for a parking offence or a broken stop light dont you think??
Jings Saddam Hussein all is forgiven
OK. Elephant time.
Why does the gubberment allow the people that can afford to, to buy cars that can easily break the speed limit by double and in extremes treble? And it is not just our gov. You can perfectly legally, anywhere in europe by a car from a showroom that will do 200mph and more.
I'll answer my own question, some deaths on the road are an acceptable price to pay for freedom and trade.
Sorry, but that is the way it is.
OK. Elephant time.
Why does the gubberment allow the people that can afford to, to buy cars that can easily break the speed limit by double and in extremes treble? And it is not just our gov. You can perfectly legally, anywhere in europe by a car from a showroom that will do 200mph and more.
I'll answer my own question, some deaths on the road are an acceptable price to pay for freedom and trade.
Sorry, but that is the way it is.
thats the thing with democracies
annemarie482
03-Mar-11, 18:16
OK. Elephant time.
Why does the gubberment allow the people that can afford to, to buy cars that can easily break the speed limit by double and in extremes treble? And it is not just our gov. You can perfectly legally, anywhere in europe by a car from a showroom that will do 200mph and more.
no doubt the the crazy amount of fuel they drink helps too!!
(says us who has just sold an rs4!!)
A tad harsh for a parking offence or a broken stop light dont you think??
Jings Saddam Hussein all is forgiven
Why is it harsh, if it saves life's then it is worth it. We all know where it is legal to park and we should be checking how car is roadworthy before driving it, why should we regard any law less important than another. If we steal does it matter how much? Lets remember as well that everyone on here has nothing to worry about, all amazing drivers after all. lol
Why is it harsh
Of course it is harsh
We all know where it is legal to park and we should be checking how car is roadworthy before driving it
Are you seriously suggesting a driving ban for a parking offence?
Sotrry officer I thought the parking meter didnt need topped up until 13:30, sorry son it was 13:25, oh well its a fair cop here is my driving licence, back to the drivign school for me!!
Who said anything about the stop light being broken before you drove it? the light could fail when you are on the move.
Why should we regard any law less important than another. If we steal does it matter how much?
Why not lock folk up for 20yrs for having a broken exhaust then? No one is questioning the law here, the thing with laws is that they have punishments to go with them, surely you are not that stupid..if you park illegaly you get a parking fine, if you are speeding you get a speedign fine and penalty points.
Lets remember as well that everyone on here has nothing to worry about, all amazing drivers after all. lol
Amazign driver maybe but I know for a fact that I have a broken foglight and a bit of a dim tailight on one side. Oh well thats a double driving ban for me then
Not a driving ban but to resit there driving test, it might stop people from regarding laws that are there for our safety and the safety of others as something to be disregarded. Would you be fined for a broken foglight or a dim taillight, more lightly to be told to see to them as you could put your safety, your passengers safety and other road users at risk. This illustrates how it appears to be socially acceptable to almost boast about breaking any law relating to road safety, what is there to be proud about in speeding or breaking any law.
Not a driving ban but to resit there driving test, it might stop people from regarding laws that are there for our safety and the safety of others as something to be disregarded. Would you be fined for a broken foglight or a dim taillight, more lightly to be told to see to them as you could put your safety, your passengers safety and other road users at risk. This illustrates how it appears to be socially acceptable to almost boast about breaking any law relating to road safety, what is there to be proud about in speeding or breaking any law.
front foglight is not part of an MOT so no, dim tailight yes I think thats a £60 fine.
Surely if you have to resit a test then your licence is no longer valid and as such you are banned.
who is boasting about breaking the law?
Your licence could be valid until sitting the test within a certain time frame, if you pass the test then fine, no problem. If you do not pass the test then you should not be driving.
"Amazign driver maybe but I know for a fact that I have a broken foglight and a bit of a dim tailight on one side. Oh well thats a double driving ban for me then"
You sure do not sound concerned about the fact that you are breaking the law, at the least a cavalier attitude. A good driver would be making sure as best he could that his car was roadworthy and not be depending on a MOT to ensure this, but then you consider yourself an amazing driver so why should you bother about trivialities like road safety.
You speak about parking as though that is just a nuisance thing for the driver, consider the amount of illegal parking that can cause an accident or the death of a pedestrian. Amazing drivers are not to blame when a child runs out behind a car that is illegally parked on a busy road, try telling parents that.
Your licence could be valid until sitting the test within a certain time frame, if you pass the test then fine, no problem. If you do not pass the test then you should not be driving.
"Amazign driver maybe but I know for a fact that I have a broken foglight and a bit of a dim tailight on one side. Oh well thats a double driving ban for me then"
You sure do not sound concerned about the fact that you are breaking the law, at the least a cavalier attitude. A good driver would be making sure as best he could that his car was roadworthy and not be depending on a MOT to ensure this, but then you consider yourself an amazing driver so why should you bother about trivialities like road safety.
You speak about parking as though that is just a nuisance thing for the driver, consider the amount of illegal parking that can cause an accident or the death of a pedestrian. Amazing drivers are not to blame when a child runs out behind a car that is illegally parked on a busy road, try telling parents that.
Where exactly did I say that I was an amazing driver?
I am not concerned in the slightest, the light is like your posts "dim" it is not out plus there are another three stop lights on the car that are fully operational.
I will fix it whn I get a chance not when some keyboard cowboy decides to bump his or her gums.
Can you please explain where I speak of parking being a nuisance, I am getting confused by your ramblings now
Where exactly did I say that I was an amazing driver?
I am not concerned in the slightest, the light is like your posts "dim" it is not out plus there are another three stop lights on the car that are fully operational.
I will fix it whn I get a chance not when some keyboard cowboy decides to bump his or her gums.
Can you please explain where I speak of parking being a nuisance, I am getting confused by your ramblings now
So YOU think I am dim lol ..... I at least can read and reply to relevant points. No need to defend you behavior to me, I am not interested how many stop lights you have on your car.
Because you are unable to follow what I write does not make me stupid, dim, a keyboard cowboy or even mean that I am rambling, it just means that you are resorting to name calling because I have given my point of view which you cannot answer properly. That is your problem not mine, but I still have the right to have my point of view without being called names by a person who does not know me.
So YOU think I am dim lol ..... I at least can read and reply to relevant points. No need to defend you behavior to me, I am not interested how many stop lights you have on your car.
Because you are unable to follow what I write does not make me stupid, dim, a keyboard cowboy or even mean that I am rambling, it just means that you are resorting to name calling because I have given my point of view which you cannot answer properly. That is your problem not mine, but I still have the right to have my point of view without being called names by a person who does not know me.
You are quite right there was no need for the dim or rambling comments, I apologise.
Can you please explain where I speak of parking being a nuisance? and Where exactly did I say that I was an amazing driver?
I do think that your suggestion that a persons driving license should be in jeapordy for a road traffic misdemeanor is absolutely ludicrous.
Blazing Sporrans
03-Mar-11, 21:16
front foglight is not part of an MOT so no, dim tailight yes I think thats a £60 fine.
As a by the by, any light fitted to a vehicle has to be capable of working, otherwise it's an offence.
As a by the by, any light fitted to a vehicle has to be capable of working, otherwise it's an offence.
thats why its on my garage floor and not on the car!!!
fair comment though
It's a big subject, isn't it?;)
There's no one 'magic bullet' that will cure all the problems discussed in this thread and it's certainly too big a subject for me to comment on all the points raised.
So I'll start off with what I know most about - driver training and the DSA test.
Someone asked a couple of questions earlier in the thread asking if the ADI's were teaching people to drive 'properly' - or just to pass a driving test?
The answer is both.
We have to teach people to drive in accordance with the DSA's set criteria - which is a set standard on all aspects of driving. The reasoning being that if you don't teach to the DSA standards - they won't pass the test. Simple.
So we are teaching to pass a test, in the same way schools teach to pass exams - no different.
But....we should be teaching drivers to think independantly about how they drive. I'm not convinced that this is happening in some cases. And we certainly shouldn't be getting them to slavishly follow test routes - unless we fully expect our students to spend the rest of their lives trundling round on a fixed circuit....:roll: That definitely is purely teaching to pass a test.
A decent driver (even a new driver) should be able to cope with any route thrown at them. There's no such thing as a 'difficult' junction or a 'dangerous' bend if they've been trained up and coached properly and are doing what they know they should be doing properly.
Is the test fit for purpose? Mostly I'd say 'yes'. But it isn't comprehensive enough.
I would prefer to see something along the lines of a two-part test as is now used with motorbikes. The first section would be covering all the set manouvers off-road (after suitable onroad training). After sucessfully passing this I would like to see an extended test of around an hour (as opposed to the present 35-40 mins), incorporating two of the previously done manouvers 'live' on the road and an emergency stop.
Retests? Definitely. A 45 minute appraisal after 2 years for new drivers - followed by retest for sub-standard drivers. Then a 15 year half hour appraisal, with a re-test to follow if the Examiner feels their driving is sub-standard.
I think its also important to pass your test after it has clicked and you do it without thinking. As an example i used to struggle to turn up at the top of our road now i isntinctly know and i just do it. Most of the time chatting away to my instructor or my partner. I think its important to pass when you're ready. I failed my first test because though i could follow the routes and instructions i wasn't ready.
aye fair point
driving should be instinctive and manouvres carried out as second nature, helps for a nice smooth drive and not all jerky and nervous.
Your licence could be valid until sitting the test within a certain time frame,Absolutely not! If one has been found propelling one's conveyance along the carriageway after wilful neglect by way of allowing a lamp filament to burn out whilst in use then one should be burned at the stake.
Until such time that you resit the extended retest.
Absolutely not! If one has been found propelling one's conveyance along the carriageway after wilful neglect by way of allowing a lamp filament to burn out whilst in use then one should be burned at the stake.
Until such time that you resit the extended retest.
Well its only fair isnt it?
:D
Well its only fair isnt it?
:D
I'm too easy going, that's my problem!
yes a stricter line is whats needed here.
Perhaps a one years driving ban then the resit.
Thatll teach those pesky broken brake light brigade
equusdriving
04-Mar-11, 01:25
Maybe we could sack the idiots responsible for the absolutely rediculous sentencing of repeat offenders such as the following gentleman !!!!!!
"A legal attempt to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run crash has failed.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was already banned from driving, left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn. He was jailed for four months over the girl's death, in 2003, but allowed to remain in the UK on his release.
The UK Border Agency (UKBA) appealed against the decision, backed by Amy's father Paul, but that was rejected by two senior immigration judges last year. Mr Houston has been campaigning for years to get Ibrahim deported."
Metalattakk
04-Mar-11, 04:15
Jings, my "Daily Mail Reader" alert is going doolally.
Maybe we could sack the idiots responsible for the absolutely rediculous sentencing of repeat offenders such as the following gentleman !!!!!!
"A legal attempt to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run crash has failed.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was already banned from driving, left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn. He was jailed for four months over the girl's death, in 2003, but allowed to remain in the UK on his release.
The UK Border Agency (UKBA) appealed against the decision, backed by Amy's father Paul, but that was rejected by two senior immigration judges last year. Mr Houston has been campaigning for years to get Ibrahim deported."
You are opening up an entirely different can of worms now.
In my opinion they shouldnt be allowed to grace our shores.
I am certain the standard of driving in Wick would improve if the authorities lifted the ban on drivers using their indicators.
C3....:roll:;)
I am certain the standard of driving in Wick would improve if the authorities lifted the ban on drivers using their indicators.
C3....:roll:;)
Ach i know. Its horrendous the amount of drivers up here that never indicate. They don't seem to realise that showing your intentions lets people know where you are going. Saves some almost accidents too!
orkneycadian
04-Mar-11, 12:52
Must be a high proportion of BMW's over there then?
thats why its on my garage floor and not on the car!!!
fair comment though
So only one light not working then?
Absolutely not! If one has been found propelling one's conveyance along the carriageway after wilful neglect by way of allowing a lamp filament to burn out whilst in use then one should be burned at the stake.
Until such time that you resit the extended retest.
That is funny, it's good that you find the subject of road accidents a subject for humor, people take deaths on the road far to seriously.
That is funny, it's good that you find the subject of road accidents a subject for humor, people take deaths on the road far to seriously.
Yeah, I find it really funny. So funny in fact that I thought I gave some considered input previously. But then that was verbose rhetoric apparently.
And accidents are really funny, I laughed like a drain when a HGV stuffed me on a roundabout shoved me into the middle of it and then drove off without a care in the world. I laughed even more when a woman pulled out in front of me on a dual carriageway, 60mph smashes are just soooooo funny.
I could join you on the outrage bus I suppose.
Oh, I had a good laugh today at the two damn good attempts on me and my families life whilst driving on the motorway.
Yeah, I find it really funny. So funny in fact that I thought I gave some considered input previously. But then that was verbose rhetoric apparently.
And accidents are really funny, I laughed like a drain when a HGV stuffed me on a roundabout shoved me into the middle of it and then drove off without a care in the world. I laughed even more when a woman pulled out in front of me on a dual carriageway, 60mph smashes are just soooooo funny.
I could join you on the outrage bus I suppose.
Oh, I had a good laugh today at the two damn good attempts on me and my families life whilst driving on the motorway.
Oh dear and hear I was thinking you found the subject funny with your comments. Sorry to hear that you feel threatened by so many bad drivers on the road but good to hear you keep your sense of humor and had a good laugh about it.
Outrage bus....... never while you provide so much humor.
Just been driven home from Wick (Tesco's of course) and after going through Reay was followed quite closely by a motorbike in the thick mist, he/she had her headlight on, so that was fine..
Going through Melvich the motorbike roared past, then realized it was a blinking car with the typical ubiquitous one headlight! Really wish the Coppers would clamp down on these 'one-headlight' idiots...
[SIZE=2]Going through Melvich the motorbike roared past, then realized it was a blinking car with the typical ubiquitous one headlight! Really wish the Coppers would clamp down on these 'one-headlight' idiots...
That's a real pet hate of mine.
Closely followed by the fog lights on in all weathers...............
Must be a high proportion of BMW's over there then?
How very sterotypical
So only one light not working then?
Actually you will find they are all working as I said the stoplight is dim and not out.
I do have a couple of instrument lamps out though if you count those.
Not sure the polis could prosecute though for having the slow speed on the fan not illuminated.
Although this would be a lifetime driving ban and 20 lashes in some folks eyes on here!!!
That is funny, it's good that you find the subject of road accidents a subject for humor, people take deaths on the road far to seriously.
I could be wrong but I think it could by sarcasm not humour
I could be wrong but I think it could by sarcasm not humour
You are never wrong surely, and sarcasm on the Org ........ surely not.
What have I missed someone threatening 20 lashes for naughty boys. lol Where does the lifetime ban and twenty lashes come from, I cannot find anyone suggesting either. Maybe this is you trying to find some humor?.
Walter Ego
05-Mar-11, 09:34
Kells, are you just trying to bump your post count up or do you have something to add to the debate?
Hmm could it be our old friend Mr Sarcasm rearing his head again!!
Whay would Kells want to get a high post count then?
Does it unlock some secret messageboard or something
annemarie482
05-Mar-11, 10:43
see unhappy orgers thread.
kells wont be posting anymore ;)
orkneycadian
05-Mar-11, 10:49
To return this thread back to its original title.....
My surmising of it is that whilst the title suggests there should be change, like in so many other things, folk dont want change. They want less road crashes, but they don't want to deprive young Johnny his birth right to a Mitsubishi Evo at age 18 if he or his parents can afford it, speed limiters are not acceptable because that deprives folk of their eternal right to drive at the speed they say, not what the law says and that insurance is just a big con anyway!
Its a bit the same as we will see with increasing frequency regards local / national government cuts - "Yes, we realise that there needs to be savings made, but not the local school, library, swimming pool, etc etc...."
Its also the same as the arguments laid out as to why folk will not switch from their cars to public transport. "Its not convenient, I cant carry home 10,000 nappies from Tesco on the bus, its too expensive....." when what they really mean is "I love my car, no matter how much petrol and road tax goes up to, and won't be changing my habits for anyone, thank you!"
Walter Ego
05-Mar-11, 11:36
Hmm could it be our old friend Mr Sarcasm rearing his head again!!
Whay would Kells want to get a high post count then?
Does it unlock some secret messageboard or something
Jiggered if I know.
It's just that given the whining on the 'Condolences' threads regarding alleged 'censorship' and people spitting the dummy after being told to start a seperate thread, I'm keen to keep this in track because it's an issue that potentially affects us all and is a good discussion.
Banter and mickey taking I'm all for, but Kells just appears to be wrapping up trolling in a dripping tap format. I have no problem with Kells, but I do have a problem with Kells dripping tap waffle on this thread. It looks like attempts to spoil to me.
'Secret message board'? That'll be the one only the high post count members have access to....;):Razz
[QUOTE=orkneycadian;826901]To return this thread back to its original title.....
My surmising of it is that whilst the title suggests there should be change, like in so many other things, folk dont want change. They want less road crashes, but they don't want to deprive young Johnny his birth right to a Mitsubishi Evo at age 18 if he or his parents can afford it, speed limiters are not acceptable because that deprives folk of their eternal right to drive at the speed they say, not what the law says and that insurance is just a big con anyway!
Its a bit the same as we will see with increasing frequency regards local / national government cuts - "Yes, we realise that there needs to be savings made, but not the local school, library, swimming pool, etc etc...."
Its also the same as the arguments laid out as to why folk will not switch from their cars to public transport. "Its not convenient, I cant carry home 10,000 nappies from Tesco on the bus, its too expensive....." when what they really mean is "I love my car, no matter how much petrol and road tax goes up to, and won't be changing my habits for anyone, thank you!"[/QUOTE
Public transport may work if you are in a city howevr there are 3 or 4 busses per day that run out my way and the nearest bus stop is 2 miles from my door, so I guess that aint an option.
No trains nearby either
northener
06-Mar-11, 10:15
To live the way we do now in rural or semi-rural communities, we certainly need private transport.
Going back to age and experience, one thing I have noticed is that I never get tailgated by 'younger' drivers. They ones sat up my backside when I'm teaching are invariably (but not exclusively) older males - the odd scowling female appears too. Young 'uns have huge problems with inexperience, granted. But it's the older drivers who appear to have serious attitude problems on the road.
An arrogance borne of believeing that years and miles on the road make them better than anyone else?
I've been driving so long I must be pretty near perfect.[lol]
orkneycadian
07-Mar-11, 11:57
To live the way we do now in rural or semi-rural communities, we certainly need private transport.
Ah yes, the perfect justification for us to keep our cars, and have the government get us cheaper fuel too!
The thing is, that argument sometimes fails to stand up. You can, if you wish, now go onto Tesco's website and order your shopping and have them deliver it. They herald it as a great new service they have developed, but the truth be, we had horse drawn vans operated by the shops and traders in the 19th century plying their trade round the country before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Various attempts to improve public transport fall flat because folk fail to give up their cars and support it. Where I live in Orkney in the sticks, I have a choice of about 12 buses each way in and out of Kirkwall a day. But yet, they are hardly supported as folk still take their cars. So now, they are talking about having to cut back the buses again as they are being so poorly supported. Yet, watch the main roads at 8 / 9 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon and there is a constant stream of cars all going the same way, all with 1 person in them. All probably saying they need them for life in the country.
The fact is, folk love their cars too much, and wont be prised from them, whatever the cost of fuel, tax or parking, and however much public transport is laid on for them. With a high proportion of cars on the road, then there will be a high number of crashes - Simples!
You see, here is a perfect example of how dangerous driving is portrayed as socially acceptable:
News story headline: "Sheriff tribute to crash victim" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12704642)
Read the story, and what the Sheriff actually said was: "Following a fatal accident inquiry, a sheriff said his death may have been avoided if he had driven more slowly." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12704642)
It's a bit like this idolisation of Colin MacRae - the man flew a helicopter illegally and killed his son. Yet he is idolised. If he'd lived he'd be in prison by now for manslaughter.
orkneycadian
10-Mar-11, 19:25
Canny, Chordie - There can be a difference to paying tribute to someones life, and paying tribute to the speed they were driving at or whether or not they were wearing a seatbelt.
Canny, Chordie - There can be a difference to paying tribute to someones life, and paying tribute to the speed they were driving at or whether or not they were wearing a seatbelt.
Disagree. You 'pay tribute' to someone who saves a life, not takes their own through recklessness.
orkneycadian
10-Mar-11, 19:33
Aye, fair enough, but bear in mind that in the quotation marks indicating what the Sheriff said, the words pay and tribute are not there. The "tribute" might be the word of an over enthusiastice news reporter who complied the story. Now, where have we seen that before.... ;)
I think education was mentioned in this thread somewhere and also about the social acceptabilty of dangerous driving. I came accross an SQA unit for 14-17 yr olds today on the net which is an 80 hour unit Being a Safe Road User, got me wondering if students get this at school, college etc if anyone knows. Of course it's not just driving but using roads safely in every way.
We had the opportunity to do Cycling Proficiency at school some plinkerty plink years ago. I'm sure that helped some of us survive to leave school. (not all, sadly).
It's a bit like this idolisation of Colin MacRae - the man flew a helicopter illegally and killed his son. Yet he is idolised. If he'd lived he'd be in prison by now for manslaughter.
I find this interesting, if he were flying legally would the outcome be different?
Hi everybody, having read most of these replies to the original thread I get the impression most people are prepared to blame the weather, the vehicle, other road users and condition of the roads but very rarely the driver. Unfortunately most incidents on the roads are the result of driver error. You can raise the insurance, you can restrict the speed, you can put legal restrictions on newly qualified drivers but you won't reduce the fatalities until you change driver attitude, understanding of the roads and the understanding of vehicle handling attributes and other drivers actions.
There are three ways to achieve safer roads, they are Enforcement, Engineering and Education.
The Police, DVLA and DSA have the duty of Enforcement.
The local council and Department of Transport have the duty of Engineering.
but who has the duty of Education ? ? Initially it is down to the Driving Instructor (if one is used), but once the driving test pass has been achieved how many people take further tuition ? 3%. ?
Further education for drivers after they have passed the DSA Practical Driving Test has very little to do with the hands and the feet, it really involves the little bit above the neck ( that's the bit that thinks )
The majority of drivers between 17yrs and 25 yrs old are the safest on the roads and are less likely to have a crash. You ask any of them.... unfortunately that is not the reality.
.
There is a driving school in Sutherland where you can get a FREE one hour assessment in your own car which also includes excellent advice on how to stay safe on the roads, the reasons why there are so many incicdents and how to successfully avoid them, but unfortunately people don't want to be educated any further because we all believe we are the safest on the roads.
When you are socialising next and someone starts a conversation about driving, I bet the person you are speaking to has the impression they are a good driver because.."They have never had a crash" That's probably down to luck rather than good judgement.
Anybody wishing to improve their driving ability but more importantly their thinking ability the telephone number of the driving school in
Sutherland is 01847 611768.
Hi everybody, having read most of these replies to the original thread I get the impression most people are prepared to blame the weather, the vehicle, other road users and condition of the roads but very rarely the driver. Unfortunately most incidents on the roads are the result of driver error. You can raise the insurance, you can restrict the speed, you can put legal restrictions on newly qualified drivers but you won't reduce the fatalities until you change driver attitude, understanding of the roads and the understanding of vehicle handling attributes and other drivers actions.
There are three ways to achieve safer roads, they are Enforcement, Engineering and Education.
The Police, DVLA and DSA have the duty of Enforcement.
The local council and Department of Transport have the duty of Engineering.
but who has the duty of Education ? ? Initially it is down to the Driving Instructor (if one is used), but once the driving test pass has been achieved how many people take further tuition ? 3%. ?
Further education for drivers after they have passed the DSA Practical Driving Test has very little to do with the hands and the feet, it really involves the little bit above the neck ( that's the bit that thinks )
The majority of drivers between 17yrs and 25 yrs old are the safest on the roads and are less likely to have a crash. You ask any of them.... unfortunately that is not the reality.
.
There is a driving school in Sutherland where you can get a FREE one hour assessment in your own car which also includes excellent advice on how to stay safe on the roads, the reasons why there are so many incicdents and how to successfully avoid them, but unfortunately people don't want to be educated any further because we all believe we are the safest on the roads.
When you are socialising next and someone starts a conversation about driving, I bet the person you are speaking to has the impression they are a good driver because.."They have never had a crash" That's probably down to luck rather than good judgement.
Anybody wishing to improve their driving ability but more importantly their thinking ability the telephone number of the driving school in
Sutherland is 01847 611768.
Whats going on here, a new orger talking a bit of common sense?
I'm going for a lie down. :eek:
northener
11-Mar-11, 08:57
Hi everybody, having read most of these replies to the original thread I get the impression most people are prepared to blame the weather, the vehicle, other road users and condition of the roads but very rarely the driver. Unfortunately most incidents on the roads are the result of driver error. You can raise the insurance, you can restrict the speed, you can put legal restrictions on newly qualified drivers but you won't reduce the fatalities until you change driver attitude, understanding of the roads and the understanding of vehicle handling attributes and other drivers actions.
There are three ways to achieve safer roads, they are Enforcement, Engineering and Education.
The Police, DVLA and DSA have the duty of Enforcement.
The local council and Department of Transport have the duty of Engineering.
but who has the duty of Education ? ? Initially it is down to the Driving Instructor (if one is used), but once the driving test pass has been achieved how many people take further tuition ? 3%. ?
Further education for drivers after they have passed the DSA Practical Driving Test has very little to do with the hands and the feet, it really involves the little bit above the neck ( that's the bit that thinks )
The majority of drivers between 17yrs and 25 yrs old are the safest on the roads and are less likely to have a crash. You ask any of them.... unfortunately that is not the reality.
.
There is a driving school in Sutherland where you can get a FREE one hour assessment in your own car which also includes excellent advice on how to stay safe on the roads, the reasons why there are so many incicdents and how to successfully avoid them, but unfortunately people don't want to be educated any further because we all believe we are the safest on the roads.
When you are socialising next and someone starts a conversation about driving, I bet the person you are speaking to has the impression they are a good driver because.."They have never had a crash" That's probably down to luck rather than good judgement.
Anybody wishing to improve their driving ability but more importantly their thinking ability the telephone number of the driving school in
Sutherland is 01847 611768.
Welcome to the site Rhian.:Razz
Succinctly put.
Regarding belief in ones own capabilities and self-assessment. I wonder how many drivers have had a near miss and have not analysed what they could have done themselves to have avoided the situation developing in the first place? Quite a lot, I'd say.
Easy- petrol at £10 a gallon
orkneycadian
12-Mar-11, 11:42
Its nearly that over here now! And no perceptible change in car usage since when it was £1 a gallon. In fact, its probably more in the way of usage!
buddyrich
12-Mar-11, 12:32
Provide a better public transport service to attract more people out of their cars. We have no public transport up here and even in the central belt it's not great compared to out ultra-efficient Euro neighbours.
The requirements for getting a driving licence should be much more stringent, along the lines of Finland. I know they have a wintery terrain over there but their driver training includes emphasis on things like how to control the car if it goes into a spin or skid, wet weather driving, night driving and i think there's an age-based restriction on what engine size you can use. I was lucky when i was young to learn to drive tractors and cars on private land and as my old man is a mechanic it was made clear to me from a young age that this can be a dangerous machine that demands care and respect. I think there's a difference between being a fast driver and being a dangerous driver.
Saying all that, if young people with no licence think they can go out and drive and then crash, well, putting themselves and anyone stupid enough to get in the car with them at risk is bad enough but the danger to other road users is the real tragedy.
buddyrich
12-Mar-11, 12:35
Easy- petrol at £10 a gallon
Aye right, dream on. We have a useless hulk of a transport system in the far north, cars are essential so why punish the majority of motorists who dont crash, by increasing the price.
orkneycadian
12-Mar-11, 14:52
I suspect the "useless hulk of a transport system" is the result of the proverbial chicken and egg situation. As posted above, (certian parts of) Orkney has, thanks to a hefty kick start subsidy programme, a very good public transport system. 1 bus an hour, 12 times a day each way through much of mainland Orkney, all the way from St Margarets Hope to Stromness. Its as good a bus service as some folk in say, Aberdeen, get. But yet, its hardly used, and is going to have to be cut back through lack of support. Meanwhile, all the folk that take their cars, continue to take their cars.
In a years time or whenever the service is cut back through lack of support, folk will say, "Oh yes, public transport - what a joke - 1 bus a day - No use to me, hence why I have to take my car!"
The same thing is repeated across the country. Folk say they wont give up their cars till there is a decent public transport service - A decent service is implemented, but folk still don't give up their cars and use it. So public transport service, by necessity, has to contract again until it meets just the demands of non car owners, disqualified drivers, etc.
Its a very old "problem" now, precipitated by those that refuse point blank to use transport, but prefer to cling onto the excuse that public transport is "unusable" in their defence for continuing to use the car. After all, it sounds a lot more PC than "I love my car and travelling in solitude and would prefer that at whatever cost!"
An observation on a main arterial road in Orkney at "rush hour" (;)) will doubtless reveal buses running nearly empty, sandwiched in a constant stream of cars, all of single occupancy.
I'm not afraid to say it, you can have my steering wheel (handle bars) etc etc etc.
To come back to an earlier point. I think some of our over confidence behind the wheel comes back to lack of awareness of the body's fraility and vulnerability to outsid forces. It's not helped by being cocooned inside a warm sound system equipped box. Nasty as it may be I think motorists need to have regular reminders of mangled wreckage and bodies and I've said it before every driver who is capable should be made to ride a bicycle at regular intervals.
It has also been said that if steering wheels had a central spike pointed inches from the drivers chest then more cautious behaviour may be one result.
It has also been said that if steering wheels had a central spike pointed inches from the drivers chest then more cautious behaviour may be one result.
Your airbag wouldnt work the same though with a spike through it.
Tooting the horn would become a painful task also.
maidenmania
13-Mar-11, 15:17
As someone who drives over 400 miles a day on the busiest roads in the UK (M25, M1 & M6) I see so much unbelievable stupidity from motorists. This week for example a lone driver pushing his car through narrow lane roadworks at 3am on M25, despite there being free recovery! I wondered if he is still alive? Another driver took wrong slip road from one motorway to another so was reversing back 1/4mile at rush hour!!!!!
These are just some examples but the over-riding problem is that car drivers (and some hgv drivers I must add) do not look ahead and see what is happening they just drive on oblivious then when need to carry out a manouver expect to be able to do it. No thought given that the space they need may be taken and vehicle in it unable to move over.
Our driving test etc is a waste of time drivers need taught how to drive properly and safely not how to do a 3 point turn, they have to use their eyes and their brains. Couple that with a rigorous driving test which includes all road conditions and skid control. Plus retesting every 5 years would probably rid us of 1/4 of all drivers so helping congestion!
secrets in symmetry
13-Mar-11, 15:46
As someone who drives over 400 miles a day on the busiest roads in the UK (M25, M1 & M6) 400 miles a day? Every (work) day?
That's a lot of miles!
Plus retesting every 5 years would probably rid us of 1/4 of all drivers so helping congestion!I'd say a lot more than that!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.