View Full Version : Is Caithness the Speeding Capital of the UK?
Interesting article in the courier put Caithness as the speeding capital of the UK.
Is it deserved?
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Caithness-identified-as-top-speeding-black-spot-in-whole-of-UK-30012013.htm
Absolutly...
Coming home about 10 mins ago, a car came charging up behind me, got incredibly close, put the headlamps on full beam, and kept their hand on the horn, just because I was gently (with out using my breaks) slowing down to turn into my drive...
I was traveling at 60 reducing to 30 before I applied my breaks...
I was in two minds wether to gently slow down to a stop which I imagine would cause great anger within the car or to slam my brakes on cause a panic or crash...
Had I been in my 4 x 4 I would have floored the breaks and the pocket rocket would have been rearrange by a steel girder with a tow hitch on...
If only...
Angel...
Another option is to touch the brake pedal without applying the brakes, just enou to let the light come on. That usually makes close, followers slow down!
Or even better, Switch on your rear Fog Lights, count to three and then accelerate away hard. Tailgater is left standing as they have braked hard when they saw your Fog Lights.
Or even better, Switch on your rear Fog Lights, count to three and then accelerate away hard. Tailgater is left standing as they have braked hard when they saw your Fog Lights.Hadn't thought of that one! Must try it next time I'm being tailgated.
It must be the capital of tootlers /sunday drivers (on any other day than Sunday)at 40 mph in a 60 zone as well though!
Its 2 extremes in the county usually ...speeders and slow drivers......as for indicators....and using passing places for a good yarn.......
Actually I don't think 40mph is a particularly slow speed in a 60 zone.
No but a 40 mph tootler in a 60mph zone who doesnt then slow down when going into a 30 mph area.....grrrrrrr
annemarie482
01-Feb-13, 00:57
In fairness angel, to be turning into your drive, you should be checking your mirrors, indicating your turn in, then braking to reduce speed AND so that your brake lights also inform the driver behind you are slowing off.
As beat bug said, that's what brake lights are for!
annemarie482
01-Feb-13, 00:58
No but a 40 mph tootler in a 60mph zone who doesnt then slow down when going into a 30 mph area.....grrrrrrr
Agreed! So many cars doing 40 on the open road then speed up to 50 going though a 40?!!
rogermellie
01-Feb-13, 01:01
why would a driver speed when they have a spy device in their car (presumably installed to lower their insurance) ? :confused
i blame the tourists who come up here with their TT's and know there's not a speed camera for 100 odd miles and the local polis can be seen from space (and online) with their mobile speed detectors and probably think their 'spy' devices won't record their speeds in the back of beyond.
failing that theory, i blame council workers travelling to inverness who get hire cars and drive em like they stole em
I just wait for the lunatic to try and overtake then I turn hard right! That'll teach 'em. Oh, and I always drive a 4x4 (often towing a BOAT) :lol:
macadamia
01-Feb-13, 02:10
The trouble is that all of you are perfect drivers. It's only those other idiots. Sadly, they think THEY are perfect drivers. Given that not everybody IS a good driver (see road traffic accidents) then somebody or several somebodies can't be telling the truth. Sad thing is, you're left with the uncomfortable thought that one of those not-so-good drivers who thinks he/she is perfect is on the same road as you, and perhaps not concentrating.........
Own up - should you not be driving defensively?
Absolutly...
Coming home about 10 mins ago, a car came charging up behind me, got incredibly close, put the headlamps on full beam, and kept their hand on the horn, just because I was gently (with out using my breaks) slowing down to turn into my drive...
I was traveling at 60 reducing to 30 before I applied my breaks...
That's aggressive driving, not speeding....
Just because a driver speeds doesn't equate to them being aggressive.
....Had I been in my 4 x 4 I would have floored the breaks and the pocket rocket would have been rearrange by a steel girder with a tow hitch on...
If only...
Angel...
Also aggressive driving, that would make you just as bad... or... even worse, you could cause a serious accident resulting in a death, not necessarily that of the driver.
Absolutly...
Coming home about 10 mins ago, a car came charging up behind me, got incredibly close, put the headlamps on full beam, and kept their hand on the horn, just because I was gently (with out using my breaks) slowing down to turn into my drive...
I was traveling at 60 reducing to 30 before I applied my breaks...
I was in two minds wether to gently slow down to a stop which I imagine would cause great anger within the car or to slam my brakes on cause a panic or crash...
Had I been in my 4 x 4 I would have floored the breaks and the pocket rocket would have been rearrange by a steel girder with a tow hitch on...
If only...
Angel...
Were you indicating at the time?
If so then you shouldve stopped and asked the driver what his / her problem was, and then reported the person.
It would be interesting to know how many vehiclesin Caithness were fitted with these spying devices and what age groups.
I would also be willing to bet that Caithness does not have a higher speeding conviction rate than say Strathclyde or the Lothian regions.
Should we feel embarrassed about this or outraged? What needs to be done to get speed down? (apart from the obvious 'slow down')
Should we feel embarrassed about this or outraged? What needs to be done to get speed down? (apart from the obvious 'slow down')
Frankly, I think it is bull excrement.
I do not know of a sinlge person that has had their cars fitted with the device.
If they fittd it to 3 cars in Caithness and based their findings on that then its obviously flawed, if it is on 3000 vehicles in the county then fair enough.
Frankly, I think it is bull excrement.
I do not know of a sinlge person that has had their cars fitted with the device.
If they fittd it to 3 cars in Caithness and based their findings on that then its obviously flawed, if it is on 3000 vehicles in the county then fair enough.
But what does your intuition tell you about the speeding?
captain chaos
01-Feb-13, 14:05
I agree with mi16 its bull excrement. They say its the records of 4 years of information from black boxes and speed cameras and (get this) has 30,000 YES thirty thousand records thats 7500 records every year or to put it another way with a population of 27,00 that's 1 in every 4 cars speeding.
Like mi16 i dont know of anyone who has a black box fitted to there car. If its all speed camera data then Caithness drivers paid just short of £0.5M in fines per year.
The most common speeding car in caithness is an Audi TT according to them......I dont think I have seen one for several months cant be that common
Yep just an excuse for the insurance companies to bump up the price of car insurance in Caithness
But what does your intuition tell you about the speeding?
It tells me the police need to be on the roads at 05:59 to catch that TT driver and we will be sorted.
It tells me the police need to be on the roads at 05:59 to catch that TT driver and we will be sorted.
So it isn't an indication of a wider problem? (please choose your words a bit more carefully this time as a lot of us are drivers in the county as well and I think we know the real answer)
So it isn't an indication of a wider problem? (please choose your words a bit more carefully this time as a lot of us are drivers in the county as well and I think we know the real answer)
In my honest opinion no.
I spend many hours each week driving, through several different counties.
From my own personal experience I would not consider Caithness to be worse than any other for speeding.
In fact I will add that the M6 is the worst road I hve seen for speeders, you can be doing a steady 70 on there and cars are screaming past you al the time as if you were doing 30 in a 60.
I have been charged with a speeding offence on three separate occasions to date and none of those were in Caithness, all in Inverness area actually, so from my own poll conducted over 19 years. I declare that Inverness is three times worse than Caithness for speeding.
newweecroft
01-Feb-13, 15:41
The M6 is particularly bad, you are right about that. But prior to the garstang interchange it is like a lot of roads up here - under populated and so long as the people do 'mirror, signal, maneuver'(emphasis on the first two which are offten ignored) then the road and volume can handle the speed. Same as many up here, speeding alone is not dangerous, bad driving is dangerous and worst bad driving whilst speeding. Even so I wonder how many bad drivers who have died would still be alive if their tyres and brakes were not out of the bargain bin or on last there last legs. Good tyres and updated brakes can make up for a multitude of sins and mistakes.
But surely speeding is bad driving?
But surely speeding is bad driving?
So Lewis Hamilton is a bad driver then?
So Lewis Hamilton is a bad driver then?
Very sensible question.
Very sensible question.
Thank you!
Would you care to answer it?
So Lewis Hamilton is a bad driver then?
Lewis Hamilton 'speeds' on race tracks, designed for speed, against other people whose intent is also to 'speed'.
If he drove in the same way on the public highway, then yes, he would be a bad driver.
Yes, Lewis Hamilton is a good driver, on a race track, where he drives at speed in a unique situation where the whole idea is to beat other drivers in specially constructed cars that are capable of doing phenomenal speeds over 200mph.
Do you think your question applies to normal life in Caithness?
Lewis Hamilton 'speeds' on race tracks, designed for speed, against other people whose intent is also to 'speed'.
If he drove in the same way on the public highway, then yes, he would be a bad driver.
Ah I see so you can go from being a world class driver to a bad driver in a few metres can you?
Surely by driving like that on the road he would be a wreckless driver if anything, still a fantastically talented driver but wreckless.
Ah I see so you can go from being a world class driver to a bad driver in a few metres can you?
Surely by driving like that on the road he would be a wreckless driver if anything, still a fantastically talented driver but wreckless.
So you don't think reckless drivers are bad drivers? If you break the law on the road you are a bad driver, no matter who you are or what your profession. That applies to racing drivers, truck drivers, van drivers, all drivers.
Yes, Lewis Hamilton is a good driver, on a race track, where he drives at speed in a unique situation where the whole idea is to beat other drivers in specially constructed cars that are capable of doing phenomenal speeds over 200mph.
Do you think your question applies to normal life in Caithness?
Nothing to stop Lewis takng his Mercedes up to JOG is there?
So you don't think reckless drivers are bad drivers? If you break the law on the road you are a bad driver, no matter who you are or what your profession. That applies to racing drivers, truck drivers, van drivers, all drivers.
Yes I do, but only when they are driving wrecklessly.
Would you condsider a member of the emergency services running a red light to be a bad driver?
Yes I do, but only when they are driving wrecklessly.
Would you condsider a member of the emergency services running a red light to be a bad driver?
Emergency services drivers are trained to a very high standard how to drive safely and with the absolute minimum of risk to the public. You will never see them just race through a red light, they will always slow and check it is safe to proceed. They also have exemption to exceed speed limits and other usual road traffic rules in the execution of their duties. So they are not driving recklessly at all, even though it may appear so to the untrained eye.
Emergency services drivers are trained to a very high standard how to drive safely and with the absolute minimum of risk to the public. You will never see them just race through a red light, they will always slow and check it is safe to proceed. They also have exemption to exceed speed limits and other usual road traffic rules in the execution of their duties. So they are not driving recklessly at all, even though it may appear so to the untrained eye.Do they really, what driving training is mandatory for the policeman, fireman engine driver or ambulance driver.Also if a member or the emergency services crashes during a response they are prosecuted for whatever laws they have broken, the same as you and I.So let's say PC plod runs a red light (on blues and twos) and T bones a passing car. Is PC Plod a dangerous driver?
captain chaos
01-Feb-13, 18:27
I don't believe that because you are doing 65mph on a main road on a dry well lit day you are a dangerous driver. A driver doing 30mph on a busy main road causing traffic hold ups and queues to form on the same day could be charged with dangerous driving but isn't speeding. As part of my employment my driving skill were assessed during a full days driving over many hundreds of miles by a professional trainer and as he said its not the speed that is dangerous its the idiot in charge of the speed, so you cannot tar everyone with the same brush.
so you cannot tar everyone with the same brush.
But that is exactly what the law does. Just because you are a highly trained driver, you are still restricted to the rules of the road like everybody else. You are not a law unto yourself.
captain chaos
01-Feb-13, 18:34
No... the law does not say I am a dangerous driver as you implied.....I would be charged with SP30 speeding on a public road, I would NOT be charged with dangerous driving.
Bad driving, dangerous driving, all semantics to me
From the definition of dangerous driving as shown on Wikipedia.
England and Wales and Scotland
StatuteThis offence is created by section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_Traffic_Act_1988&action=edit&redlink=1) (as substituted by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_Traffic_Act_1991&action=edit&redlink=1)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#cite_note-1)):
“
A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
”
"Dangerously" A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_Traffic_Act_1988&action=edit&redlink=1) if
the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#cite_note-2) or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#cite_note-3)
In this context, "dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#cite_note-4)
In Attorney General's Reference (No 4 of 2000) (2001) 2 Cr. App. R. 417 Woolf CJ said at p 422:
The essential limbs, as is common ground, do not require any specific intent to drive dangerously. Section 2A sets out a wholly objective test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the province of the jury.Thus, whereas the underlying test of dangerousness is objective, a test based on the concept of "obviousness" considers the extent of knowledge as to causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)). This test is hybrid, drawing both on the actual subjective knowledge that the accused had in his or her mind at the time the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) of driving occurred, and on the knowledge that would have been in the mind of a reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) (see mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) andcriminal negligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence) for discussion on the nature of these tests and the scope of the reasonable person).
The Court of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal) held in the case of R v Banister [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving#cite_note-5) that police drivers get no special treatment. "...the special skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous."
But surely speeding is bad driving?Nope.
The trouble is that all of you are perfect drivers.Nope, just me. But thanks for noticing anyway.
Emergency services drivers are trained to a very high standard how to drive safely and with the absolute minimum of risk to the public.Nope.
Speeding can be classed as dangerous driving but I Think you need to be 100mph+
I've passed all your IP addresses onto the appropriate authorities.
luskentyre
01-Feb-13, 23:49
But surely speeding is bad driving?
Of course it is. It's also arrogant in the extreme because these people don't think the law applies to them. They're special
I've passed all your IP addresses onto the appropriate authorities.There is no danger of my broadband being caught for speeding.
Of course it is. It's also arrogant in the extreme because these people don't think the law applies to them. They're specialI presume you have never dipped over the limit then?Perhaps 32mph in town or 65mph during an overtake?
I've passed all your IP addresses onto the appropriate authorities.Mine's 1-800-FU.... Oh, IP address, sorry. 192.168.0.34 Hope that helps!
;)
But surely speeding is bad driving?
Of course it is.
I assume we are talking legally here? (THINK about this one)
Why is (purely legally) speeding bad except for the obvious offence?
Keyser_soze
02-Feb-13, 00:11
Yes. have ye ever been oot the hempriggs straight ?? Its ;like Monza .
I assume we are talking legally here? (THINK about this one)
Why is (purely legally) speeding bad except for the obvious offence?
People of all abilities are entitled to drive. So long as you pass the basic test and do all those things like read a number plate etc then you can drive. The law doesn't take into account nervousness, confidence, sickness, mild mental illness,age to a certain extent. We are all entitled to drive. So if there weren't any speed restrictions then some people will in danger from other road users as they could be driving above their own internal speed limit/reaction limit.
We all can't have our own speed limits to which we should adhere. That is unsafe. But if we all are restricted to speed limits to which are commonsense based on the lowest of that wide range of ability then we can all drive safely together and get from A to B safely in a reasonable amount of time without looking flash or cool or mangled. You might have deluded ideas of what speed you may think you can drive at. Nobody will be prepared to test you and you could be living on borrowed time.
A study of more than 700,000 crashes in the UK has produced detailed evidence on
the causes of road traffic accidents. The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has analysed, in breathtaking detail,
the anatomy of a road accident.
Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that speeding
plays in road accidents
But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics are
quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction".
Slow drivers 'are among most dangerous on roads' and cause crashes
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz2JgytnPs5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)
People of all abilities are entitled to drive.Errm, kind of. But it should be the ability to drive, not the ability of the person.
And the original Q was: "Why is (purely legally) speeding bad except for the obvious offence?"
I accept a lot of what you say below (I've highlighted some bits):
So long as you pass the basic*1 test and do all those things like read a number plate etc then you can drive. The law*2 doesn't take into account nervousness, confidence, sickness, mild mental illness,age to a certain extent. We are all entitled to drive.No, we are not.
So if there weren't any speed restrictions then some people will in danger from other road users as they could be driving above their own internal speed limit/reaction limit.I accept there has to be a legal limit, I am not arguing that. But, 'we' must be able to drive to a certain standard / ability regardless of of our own internal perceptions.
*1 The current test is too basic and fails to consider practical ability properly.
*2 The law is an Ass. I seem to remember. However, it does take into consideration nervousness, confidence, sickness, mild mental illness,age to a certain extent. But these points are moot, if you are too nervous a driver you shouldn't pass the test.
My opinion is this assumption of entitlement, it is not. It is a privilege based on your abilities and not another bleedin 'Right'.
I cannot go and get a Professorship based on my assumption of entitlement, I would have to earn it through years of research and studying.
Really, I am not deluded.
The speed limits that are currently in place are not common sense based. (I'm not saying they are wrong)
And we cannot have driving standards on the road based on the lowest ability.
The popular misconception is that speed equals accidents. My opinion is that actually very bad driving standards coupled with ill informed media spin equals injuries, fatalities and financial cost to motorists.
Speed limits aren't based on common sense at all! When was the last universal speed limit set? I'm guessing it was the 70mph motorway limit (with a brief temporary reduction). These were set in the 1960s. Anyone driven a 1960s car recently?
I assume we are talking legally here? (THINK about this one)
Why is (purely legally) speeding bad except for the obvious offence?
Because it is breaking the law. Good drivers don't break the law, bad drivers do.
Bobinovich
02-Feb-13, 10:24
But if we all are restricted to speed limits to which are commonsense based on the lowest of that wide range of ability then we can all drive safely together and get from A to B safely in a reasonable amount of time without looking flash or cool or mangled.
If the speed limits were based on the LOWEST of the ability range then we'd be capped at 20mph as that appears to be the maximum for some folk - even out of town! :eek:
If the speed limits were based on the LOWEST of the ability range then we'd be capped at 20mph as that appears to be the maximum for some folk - even out of town! :eek:
That is already happening in England and Wales. They've woken up to the fact that more people walk than drive, and that society is about people, not cars. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-20mph-revolution-millions-of-drivers-face-lower-speed-limits-as-new-laws-sweep-the-country-8434292.html
Millions more motorists could soon face reduced speed limits as new research by The Independentsuggests that more than a third of local authorities have introduced measures to stop drivers exceeding 20mph on at least some roads, or are planning to do so.
In what is being hailed by campaigners as a "cultural shift", as well as a significant reversal in decades of policy which prioritised motor vehicles over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, new figures show that dozens of cities and towns across England and Wales have either approved slowdown zones or are now considering introducing them. It is claimed a 10mph cut in the maximum speed limit could lead to a 40 per cent reduction in the number of road casualties, as well as reducing pollution, promoting cycling, walking and local shopping.
Here's the campaign website: http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk
It's all about the law, good versus bad. Introduce more law and more speed cameras to increase the coffers, stealth tax and screw anything else. Really, has no one ever thought about their driving standard since having their test?
Introduce more law and more speed cameras to increase the coffers,
Cameras only make money from law-breakers. That's fine by me.
It's all about the law, good versus bad. Introduce more law and more speed cameras to increase the coffers, stealth tax and screw anything else. Really, has no one ever thought about their driving standard since having their test?Yes I have on many occasions.However let's all be honest here, this thread has migrated from speeding to general driving standards. Who can honestly say that they have never broken the law whilst driving? Maybe nipped through an amber light, responded to the telephone, exceeded the statutory speed limit, mounted the kerb whilst parking etc etc.I am willing to bet the answer will be none of us.Does that make us all bad drivers, not fit to be on the roads?
Yes I have on many occasions.However let's all be honest here, this thread has migrated from speeding to general driving standards. Who can honestly say that they have never broken the law whilst driving? Maybe nipped through an amber light, responded to the telephone, exceeded the statutory speed limit, mounted the kerb whilst parking etc etc.I am willing to bet the answer will be none of us.Does that make us all bad drivers, not fit to be on the roads?
Speeding is part of 'general driving standards'. That so many think it's ok to flout the law because they have an inflated opinion of their own abilities shows how much standards have dropped.
Does that make us all bad drivers, not fit to be on the roads?Quite. The number of people that bang on that they are holier than thou because they drive at 40 in a 60 probably don't consider the rest of their actions or other road users.
Drive according to the conditions! Anyone remember that one, or as long as we don't break the law we'll be fine and dandy.
From what I'm seeing overall driving standards are woeful and seem to be falling, across all age groups and sexes. This mantra of speed is completely missing the point.
Out of the accidents I have been in, involved in directly or indirectly, witnessed and the near misses I would say 98% were due directly to driving standards and not speeding.
Back to basics. Improve the driving test and how lessons are delivered i.e. only approved instructors and a minimum number of hours etc.
Retest every few years, that'll wake a lot of people up.
Speeding is part of 'general driving standards'. That so many think it's ok to flout the law because they have an inflated opinion of their own abilities shows how much standards have dropped.Can we take from that, that you are a non offender?
Are you a motorist by the way?
Nowhere have I seen anyone state that it is permissable to flout the law. If you do the crime you do the time.
Can we take from that, that you are a non offender?
Are you a motorist by the way?
Nowhere have I seen anyone state that it is permissable to flout the law. If you do the crime you do the time.
I've been driving since 1980 and have maintained a clean licence for that entire time.
I've been driving since 1980 and have maintained a clean licence for that entire time.I never asked if you have been prosecuted, I asked if you have broken the law!
There probably no saints of the road amongst us and nobody is casting the first stone. But, there is a heap of difference between creeping over the speed limit then taking corrective action immediately and that of someone deliberately breaks the speed limit whilst convincing themselves that they know better than other road users. Now that is reckless.
I never asked if you have been prosecuted, I asked if you have broken the law!
No I haven't broken the law.
As i said before, a young guy has better reaction times and will drive faster, but if he comes up against an older driver then the younger driver is driving faster than the older driver's reaction capability.
No I haven't broken the law.Well good for you sir
(Aside I suspect that is also bull excrement)
As i said before, a young guy has better reaction times and will drive faster, but if he comes up against an older driver then the younger driver is driving faster than the older driver's reaction capability.
So is that the fault of the older driver or the young speeding moron?
So is that the fault of the older driver or the young speeding moron?
I'd say it was the fault of the younger driver for not driving with due care and consideration for other road users.
So is that the fault of the older driver or the young speeding moron?Who said the younger motorist was speeding?If the older person doesn't have suitable reaction times then he/she should not be on the road.
Who said the younger motorist was speeding?If the older person doesn't have suitable reaction times then he/she should not be on the road.
In our scenario he was speeding and only a doctor can make a decision to take a driver off the road.
Out of the accidents I have been in, involved in directly or indirectly, witnessed and the near misses I would say 98% were due directly to driving standards and not speeding.
Bliddy hell Phill, you are a jinx. :eek:
In our scenario he was speeding and only a doctor can make a decision to take a driver off the road.Nowhere until now was speeding mentioned in your scenario.Also the CPS can take drivers off the road.If you are no longer up to the minimum driving standards then it is your responsibility to take yourself off the road.
Mi16, try to keep up.
He can't... you're going too fast... :lol:
He can't... you're going too fast... :lol:The speeding old get
Bliddy hell Phill, you are a jinx. :eek:Nah, so far so good. Managed to dodge all the speed demons!
In a recent pantomime survey, 6 of 7 dwarves said they were not Happy.
True enough.... but it doesnt exactly tell you the whole story!
Who said the younger motorist was speeding?If the older person doesn't have suitable reaction times then he/she should not be on the road.
The majority of road incidents and deaths involve young drivers. More young people are killed on British roads than by any other means.
The majority of road incidents and deaths involve young drivers. More young people are killed on British roads than by any other means.Is the root cause speed, inexperience or another though.
Gave the kids a shock yesterday......the horrors clicked off their seatbelts before the car stopped (doing a reverse park) slammed on the brake hard (less than 5mph) and they lurched forward.....2 out of the 3 were out of their seats after my tap on the breaks.....so it might make them more safety aware .... maybe a few simulated shocks for learner drivers will give the message across about what could happen, would work?
Keyser_soze
03-Feb-13, 23:33
In fact No , I think naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrnnnnnnnnnnn is more chance of catching a speeder
rogermellie
04-Feb-13, 00:05
Gave the kids a shock yesterday......the horrors clicked off their seatbelts before the car stopped (doing a reverse park) slammed on the brake hard (less than 5mph) and they lurched forward.....2 out of the 3 were out of their seats after my tap on the breaks.....so it might make them more safety aware .... maybe a few simulated shocks for learner drivers will give the message across about what could happen, would work?
this has to be one of the stupidest things i've read in a long time, teach learner drivers sure, but your kids are how old ?
all your teaching them by doing this is that their mums a mentalist
luskentyre
04-Feb-13, 00:35
Speed limits aren't based on common sense at all! When was the last universal speed limit set? I'm guessing it was the 70mph motorway limit (with a brief temporary reduction). These were set in the 1960s. Anyone driven a 1960s car recently?
What difference does it make if you're driving a 1960's car or a 2013 one?
The fact remains that speed limits are set in law. Who are you to decide that the law doesn't apply to you?
luskentyre
04-Feb-13, 00:38
Gave the kids a shock yesterday......the horrors clicked off their seatbelts before the car stopped (doing a reverse park) slammed on the brake hard (less than 5mph) and they lurched forward.....2 out of the 3 were out of their seats after my tap on the breaks.....so it might make them more safety aware .... maybe a few simulated shocks for learner drivers will give the message across about what could happen, would work?
this has to be one of the stupidest things i've read in a long time, teach learner drivers sure, but your kids are how old ?
all your teaching them by doing this is that their mums a mentalist
Wrong. How better to teach by example? It sounds like the original poster did things in a controlled manner. Teach 'em young I say.
Wrong. How better to teach by example? It sounds like the original poster did things in a controlled manner. Teach 'em young I say.
I had to brake quite sharply the other day and a triple chorus from the back seat chirped, "That's why we wear seat belts!"
What difference does it make if you're driving a 1960's car or a 2013 one?
The fact remains that speed limits are set in law. Who are you to decide that the law doesn't apply to you?
I don't, I just said it wasn't sensible...the limits that is. I'm all for obeying the law as you will see from my junky thread posts.
I don't, I just said it wasn't sensible...the limits that is. I'm all for obeying the law as you will see from my junky thread posts.
Maybe you should change your siggy to.....
Get your motor runnin' Born to be mild :roll:
Never too fast so I live, always within the law....
Maybe you should change your siggy to.....
Get your motor runnin' Born to be mild :roll:
Never too fast so I live, always within the law....
It doesn't scan....you should change your ciggy. [lol]
If you want to improve road safety remove all driver seatbelts from cars and install a ten-inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel aimed at the driver's chest.
If you want to improve road safety remove all driver seatbelts from cars and install a ten-inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel aimed at the driver's chest.Progressive and sensible. [disgust]
If you want to improve road safety remove all driver seatbelts from cars and install a ten-inch spike in the centre of the steering wheel aimed at the driver's chest.Fancy taking part in the pilot scheme?
Fancy taking part in the pilot scheme?
Wouldn't bother me. I'm a safe driver who stays within the law and doesn't take chances, like speeding.
Wouldn't bother me. I'm a safe driver who stays within the law and doesn't take chances, like speeding.Famous last words
Wouldn't bother me. I'm a safe driver who stays within the law and doesn't take chances, like speeding.Ha ha! You clearly don't drive very much, if at all.
Ditto mi16, famous last words indeed.
Ha ha! You clearly don't drive very much, if at all.
Ditto mi16, famous last words indeed.
I'm a driver by profession. Have been for thirty years. HGV 1, 2 and 3 (now Cat C1 etc.), vans, buses, forklifts of varying types. You name it and I've probably driven it. Mostly in serious traffic, like down south, proper south around the south east and on the continent. And that whole time I've done it safely and within the law. You see a clean licence is important for my livelihood.
You clearly have very little driving experience beyond the empty roads of Caithness.
I'm a driver by profession. Have been for thirty years. HGV 1, 2 and 3 (now Cat C1 etc.), vans, buses, forklifts of varying types. You name it and I've probably driven it. Mostly in serious traffic, like down south, proper south around the south east and on the continent. And that whole time I've done it safely and within the law. You see a clean licence is important for my livelihood.You clearly have very little driving experience beyond the empty roads of Caithness.HGV drivers are the worst I have ever seen for exceeding the limit.You must be the only one that drives on A roads at the limit of 40mph, most others are on the governer.
In fact Department of Transport research suggests that 70% of HGV's consistently speed.
M Swanson
04-Feb-13, 15:32
The road we always found most dangerous in Scotland, was the A9 to Inverness. My goodness, some of them really hit the throttle. Beautiful scenery, but a bit hair-raising. :eek:
I'm a driver by profession. Have been for thirty years. HGV 1, 2 and 3 (now Cat C1 etc.), vans, buses, forklifts of varying types. You name it and I've probably driven it. Mostly in serious traffic, like down south, proper south around the south east and on the continent. And that whole time I've done it safely and within the law. You see a clean licence is important for my livelihood.You clearly have very little driving experience beyond the empty roads of Caithness.;) Proper south?
Hmmm, did get snotted by a HGV at Dover once, he tried to make off and then gave dodgy insurance details.
Certainly wouldnt want to be driving around safely with a big spike in front of me, too many idiots on the road to risk that. Thought a professional HGV driver would be aware of that.
HGV drivers are the worst I have ever seen for exceeding the limit.You must be the only one that drives on A roads at the limit of 40mph, most others are on the governer.
In fact Department of Transport research suggests that 70% of HGV's consistently speed.
I know you wrote something but all I'm seeing is "Irrelevant generalisation blah blah blah… invented statistic blah blah blah…" Come back and try again when you've experienced more than a flock of sheep for traffic congestion.
I suspect you have sampled a few flocks of sheep hevent ewe.
Speeding does not just happen on the open road you should see the speed of some drivers coming in from Staxigoe early every morning, makes you frightened to walk along the pavement.
bunnies&chicks
09-Feb-13, 13:37
The road we always found most dangerous in Scotland, was the A9 to Inverness. My goodness, some of them really hit the throttle. Beautiful scenery, but a bit hair-raising. :eek:
Last time I drove up..some granny behing me weaving in and out trying to overtake and I was doing 60 and she overtook me on a blind bend!!!! completely nuts!!!
Would Caithness General A&E think speeding is a problem in the area, Im sure they have had to put their fair share of people back together or have to send them on the Helicopter down to Raigmore because of extensive injuries...? Broken smashed bones bleed...alot,that thought alone is enough to keep my foot off the accelerator!
Just a thought from the other side of the argument!
:-)
Last time I drove up..some granny behing me weaving in and out trying to overtake and I was doing 60 and she overtook me on a blind bend!!!! completely nuts!!!Would Caithness General A&E think speeding is a problem in the area, Im sure they have had to put their fair share of people back together or have to send them on the Helicopter down to Raigmore because of extensive injuries...? Broken smashed bones bleed...alot,that thought alone is enough to keep my foot off the accelerator!Just a thought from the other side of the argument!:-)I am sure drink and drug related casualties are more of a problem for them.
bunnies&chicks
09-Feb-13, 15:59
I am sure drink and drug related casualties are more of a problem for them.
I will let you know when I start there :-)
Rather than just bitching about road users, here's my little scheme to improve driving standards:
Introduction of compulsory basic training from an instructor, (2 - 5 hours.)
Overall minimum number of hours of instructor training, (8 - 10 hours.)
Rework the hazard perception test to cover more scenarios and to be discussed with an instructor. (current clicky video nonsense is plain crap)
Mandatory skidpan training.
Mandatory motorway training (1-2 hours) within 12 months of passing initial test and before using motorways.
Mandatory night / darkness training within 6 months of test if unable to complete during training.
Mandatory winter / bad weather training within 6 months of test if unable to complete during training.
Mandatory eyetest.
Retest every few years, 5 or 10? Maybe every 2?
Current licence holders to complete a theory & hazard perception test within 5 years if they have not had them previously.
Fair or draconian?
Rather than just bitching about road users, here's my little scheme to improve driving standards:Introduction of compulsory basic training from an instructor, (2 - 5 hours.)Overall minimum number of hours of instructor training, (8 - 10 hours.)Rework the hazard perception test to cover more scenarios and to be discussed with an instructor. (current clicky video nonsense is plain crap)Mandatory skidpan training.Mandatory motorway training (1-2 hours) within 12 months of passing initial test and before using motorways.Mandatory night / darkness training within 6 months of test if unable to complete during training.Mandatory winter / bad weather training within 6 months of test if unable to complete during training.Mandatory eyetest.Retest every few years, 5 or 10? Maybe every 2?Current licence holders to complete a theory & hazard perception test within 5 years if they have not had them previously.Fair or draconian?Unworkable I am afraid, the necessary infrastructure would be too expensive
Retest every few years, 5 or 10? Maybe every 2?
Current licence holders to complete a theory & hazard perception test within 5 years if they have not had them previously.
Fair or draconian?
One of the reasons why we are not travelling on buses and other public transport is that it is too easy to pass our driving test and to keep it. So making your suggestions could go some way to rebalance the hassle value of getting about. We could improve society by getting people on public transport and get people out of their cars. More sustainable and safer too.
Unworkable I am afraid, the necessary infrastructure would be too expensiveApart from upping the number of examiners I don't see a huge infrastructure issue. As for cost this is partly borne by the licence holder, the insurers could help fund training & skidpan etc. and govt will get hit with some but save on future mopping up costs.
One of the reasons why we are not travelling on buses and other public transport is that it is too easy to pass our driving test and to keep it. So making your suggestions could go some way to rebalance the hassle value of getting about. We could improve society by getting people on public transport and get people out of their cars. More sustainable and safer too.The reason why we dont use public transport is that it is often inconvenient, and unreliable. Not to mention dirty and expensive particularly when you are a family.
The reason why we dont use public transport is that it is often inconvenient, and unreliable. Not to mention dirty and expensive particularly when you are a family.Couldn't agree more with this post. There are also those of us that just love to drive and not be driven.
The reason why we dont use public transport is that it is often inconvenient, and unreliable. Not to mention dirty and expensive particularly when you are a family.
Yes, agreed, which are some of the consequences of the convenience of private transport. I'm convinced that if the balance of convenience is redressed then public transport will become more convenient (more trains and buses)and cleaner as competition vies for our custom.
Couldn't agree more with this post. There are also those of us that just love to drive and not be driven.
There are many advantages for pleasure drivers if it is more difficult to hold a valid licence. Firstly, if you are determined to drive because you enjoy it then you will do, you will find away to continue to drive no matter what. In return, you get roads freer of traffic, especially from older and younger drivers. A bigger pleasure to drive in my opinion.
Interesting on how is perceived as potentially being difficult to hold a licence rather than just a way to improve and raise standards. I don't think improving driving standards should be a driver to push people to public transport. Drifting the thread now but I have long maintained that massive improvement and investment in public transport has to come before forcing / encouraging people to use it (further drift, the HS2 isn't really my idea of the improvements needed either).
The ease of the test and retention of a licence doesn't really bear on the use of public transport. The cost of buying and maintaining a car is very high, but still financially preferable to using public transport especially when time cost is factored in.
Yes, agreed, which are some of the consequences of the convenience of private transport. I'm convinced that if the balance of convenience is redressed then public transport will become more convenient (more trains and buses)and cleaner as competition vies for our custom.This is also an excellent post. As I have said I LOVE driving and there could be no public transport that would convince me to leave the car or bike at home but that said I know many people that find driving a nuisance and just down right hate having to do it but they have to as public transport simply does not offer them the service they require.
I would like to see a huge investment into public transport and a rethink of how it could be made better but it would take far more brains and way more cash than the likes of myself could ever offer.
Unworkable I am afraid, the necessary infrastructure would be too expensive
It doesn't require any new infrastructure at all. In fact it would create jobs in the driver education field.
Perhaps if government stopped subsidising private motoring and the cost of driving properly reflected its cost to society fewer would want to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NmgCVKK6cI
cptdodger
10-Feb-13, 15:33
I moved to Halkirk in 2009, from a city where we had a bus service, during the week it was every 15 minutes, and we felt hard done by on a Sunday when it was half an hour between buses ! The first year I was here I got a job at The Castle Of Mey, I can't drive, and back then my partner could'nt (he has since passed his test at considerable cost) The Castle very kindly tried to work my hours round the bus service, which during the week was'nt too bad, but on a Saturday, it used to take me four hours to get home, because, although I could get a bus from the Castle into Thurso, it meant I missed the bus to Halkirk by 10 minutes which resulted in a three hour wait for the next bus. As I was only part time, I was not going to pay for taxi's. And I also could not work on a Sunday as the 80's do not run. We moved here because of my partners job, he was told if we relocated his job would be secure, he was made redundant a year later. Thankfully at that point he was learning to drive, and passed his test shortly after leaving the company. Having found trying to secure employment up here is, let's say difficult, had he not had a driving licence, he would have probably been unemployed for the last three years. If whoever it is that is trying to get people to use cars less, then they must provide a decent standard of public transport.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.