View Full Version : Deaths on Scotland's Roads
peedie wifie
29-Jan-07, 10:47
How very sad to hear 14 people lost their lives on Scotland's roads this weekend. Surely its time we put pressure on the Government to look at ways of ending this tragic waste of life.
I think 17 is too young for someone to hold a driving license. My son reaches 17 next year and I'm already concerned about him having a full driving license and the responsibility that goes with that.
I don't know what the answer is, but we need to do something.
What do others think?
How very sad to hear 14 people lost their lives on Scotland's roads this weekend.
I don't know what the answer is, but we need to do something.
It is very sad.
There were a number of suggestions made on the Inexperienced Drivers chain that Cuddlepop started a little while ago.
I thought the best ideas were -
a) to identify new drivers with a special plate & speed restrictions for the first year. You do gain in confidence with experience, but as a new driver I know I often felt pressured into doing silly things by pushy drivers who wouldn't know I was only a beginner and would be breathing down the back of my neck...pressing me to drive faster than I felt comfortable doing at the time.
b) a total ban on alcohol for everyone driving.
I think implementing these ideas would help a bit, and if even one life was saved it would obviously be a very good thing.
Good point about the alcohol - I don't think there should be a limit - I think that if you are driving then even 1 drink is too much.
The Pepsi Challenge
29-Jan-07, 12:25
What about those who are stressed or sleep deprived - how do you monitor that? Plus - and I don't say this in jest - but, compared to the rest of the country, every time I arrive north of Inverness, it's as if drivers suddenly lose the abilty to drive. Do they KNOW how to drive up there? Some of the stuff I witness up there is a lot scarier than anywhere else I've encountered.
What about those who are stressed or sleep deprived - how do you monitor that? Plus - and I don't say this in jest - but, compared to the rest of the country, every time I arrive north of Inverness, it's as if drivers suddenly lose the abilty to drive. Do they KNOW how to drive up there? Some of the stuff I witness up there is a lot scarier than anywhere else I've encountered.
I agree that people driving when stressed and/or tired is a major problem, and it's hard to see that it can be monitored.
Sometimes maybe if people are particularly stressed/tired they need to at least think "Do I really need to make this journey?" and the same if weather conditions are very bad. OK, most often the journey is essential, but sometimes it could perhaps be avoided? I remember once turning back in dense fog -we were on the way to my husband's aunt's 90th birthday "do"- it was very disappointing, but the risk was just too great.
I've always found driving on the A9 very scary [evil] and I think that more could and should be done to improve roads/accident blackspots as much as anything.
The Pepsi Challenge
29-Jan-07, 12:57
That's something I noticed when travelling on the A9 and the more rural roads in the highlands - they're badly lit.
How very sad to hear 14 people lost their lives on Scotland's roads this weekend. Surely its time we put pressure on the Government to look at ways of ending this tragic waste of life.
I think 17 is too young for someone to hold a driving license. My son reaches 17 next year and I'm already concerned about him having a full driving license and the responsibility that goes with that.
I don't know what the answer is, but we need to do something.
What do others think?
I agree also, my son is not long to go to 17, and I wouldn't like to think what he might get up to when in a car with his mates. But you will never stop road deaths but banning alcohol would help, as would chipping cars driven by youngsters by means of a chip in the key, so that they can't drive the car after a certain time at night. I'm sure a lot of the accidents involving young drivers happen in the evening time, or early hours. Technology is there, so let's use it!!
b) a total ban on alcohol for everyone driving.
Impossible, alcohol is a naturally occuring substance in your body, some of the bacteria in your stomach produce alcohol breaking down a slice of bread just the same as yeast does breaking down malt.
Then there are legitimate reasons for taking small amounts of alcohol, it is the base of some medicines, the ingredient in some foods, how do you distinguish between someone who had 8 pints of beer 8 hours ago and someone who had a bowl of trifle 1 hour ago?
In 12% of accidents last year the driver had had some alcohol, the other 88% were stone cold sober, half asleep maybe, late for work and on a final warning maybe, answering the mobile or tuning in the radio maybe or maybe just showing off to their friends but stone cold sober. Start with them, it's too easy to look for scapegoats and ineffective, I don't see why someone who stays at home to have a drink should be penalised for having a tiny amount of alcohol left in their bloodstream next day while there are idiots out there overtaking on blind corners.
too easy to look for scapegoats and ineffective, I don't see why someone who stays at home to have a drink should be penalised for having a tiny amount of alcohol left in their bloodstream next day while there are idiots out there overtaking on blind corners.
I wasn't "looking for scapegoats", Fred. Nor do I think I'm offering a panacea.
I'm putting forward what appears to me a reasonable suggestion. As long as people think it's safe to have 1 drink just before driving, or 8 drinks the night before, the harder it is to give a message that alcohol and driving do not go well together.
Mobiles and driving don't mix well either, I agree. Anything that affects the driver's concentration is potentially dangerous, as I well know from having three young children in the back of the car. We all have times we're tired, worried, stressed, not able to concentrate as well as we would like to, I know that.
Neither am I saying that that overtaking on blind corners isn't dangerous. But don't you think that at least some of the 12% of accidents you mention where alcohol WAS involved might possibly have been prevented if alcohol had NOT been involved?
The Angel Of Death
29-Jan-07, 17:21
What about old folk ??? id put some of them in the same bracket as young drivers some of them drive way to slow for the roads (driving to slow can be as dangerous as driving to fast)
I went from wick to thurso this morning and twice had an oldie pull out in front of me
One even tried to do a u turn in the road after taking a wrong turn and nearly took the side out of my car wasn't even aware that i was along side her even though she had cut me off a second before hand
How very sad to hear 14 people lost their lives on Scotland's roads this weekend. Surely its time we put pressure on the Government to look at ways of ending this tragic waste of life.
I think 17 is too young for someone to hold a driving license. My son reaches 17 next year and I'm already concerned about him having a full driving license and the responsibility that goes with that.
I don't know what the answer is, but we need to do something.
What do others think?
I don't think 17 is too young to get a licence but what I do think is rong is the immiture 17 year olds who think they own the roads speed about in their "cool" cars showing off.
Every newly qualified driver is still a novice for many months until they gain experience. Many are nervous and wouldn't intentionally do anything dangerous, but they may do it unintentionally in panic; others are over-confident and think they have the driving skills of Colin Macrae and that every road is a "special stage"; the majority will take time to develop their driving skills and become safe, competent drivers.
Of course statistically younger drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents, but by definition they are more likely to be newly qualified; I don't know if the data exists but maybe someone out there knows if a 17 year old who has recently passed their test is any more likely to cause an accident than a 40 year old with the same experience?
There is also the issue of eyesight and health. How many people have their eyes tested as often as they should? How many wouldn't pass even the basic "read a number plate from a distance of 67 feet"? I'll bet we could all name someone who sits sqinting at the TV, hasn't seen an optician for 30 years, but will happily get behind the wheel of a car claiming 20:20 vision! You could probably say the same thing for a whole host of medical conditions which impair one's ability to drive.
Personally I think 17 is about right for starting to drive, if we want to make the roads safer we should be concentrating on making sure everyone who drives is doing so legally, I would opt for:
1. Compulsory eye test every two years and be issued with a certificate stating you can drive subject to glasses/contacts being worn, not having a valid certificate or driving outwith it's conditions should be treated in the same way as drink driving
2. Compulsory medical every five years, as above you must have a valid medical certificate to drive
3. Lower speed limits for a probationary period for new drivers who have to display a "P" plate.
4. Retake driving test every 10 years, if you fail you become a "probationer" again and have to retake the test, if you fail again you revert to a provisional licence and start from scratch.
These may sound a bit Draconian to some folk but I would be happy to go through this process. It wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything as the driver would have to pay the fees just like any other motoring cost, and hopefully the roads would be a bit safer.
What about old folk ??? id put some of them in the same bracket as young drivers some of them drive way to slow for the roads (driving to slow can be as dangerous as driving to fast)
I certainly agree with you on that!
Am I right in thinking that after the age of 70, drivers have to have get a certificate from their doctor every three years to say they're fit to drive?
Although this perhaps deals only with eyesight and some specific health problems. Every three years doesn't seem often enough either (maybe I've got this wrong?)
The system doesn't seem to work all that well I must say - I certainly know a couple of people in their 80s still driving who certainly shouldn't be...:confused
I disagree that slow driving is just as dangerous. If you drive slow then there is a much smaller risk of you killing someone if you run them down PLUS your thinking reaction will have to be quicker if you are driving fast. It is only dangerous for impatient drivers who HAVE to get passed because they MUST get somewhere as soon as possible. Surley someones life is more important that getting somewhere as quick as possible.. Plus, why do people drive fast when there is no reason for them to be as driving slower saves fuel which means money too.
peedie wifie
29-Jan-07, 18:29
[quote=garycs;186096]Of course statistically younger drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents, but by definition they are more likely to be newly qualified; I don't know if the data exists but maybe someone out there knows if a 17 year old who has recently passed their test is any more likely to cause an accident than a 40 year old with the same experience?
I agree with your suggestions Garycs, but I also think a 40 year old is more likely to resist the taunts from others to drive at excessive speed! Most of the reports from the police say that speed is a major factor in accidents, particularly with young drivers.
We don't allow 17 year olds to drink alcohol yet they are allowed to have a "loaded weapon" when they take to the roads at high speed and then have to live with the tragic consequences of their actions.
Yes there are bad drivers of all ages and no matter what restrictions are put in place some will ignore them and "take their chance" but the recent spate of car accidents where our young are losing their lives is heartbreaking.
If you drive slow then there is a much smaller risk of you killing someone if you run them down PLUS your thinking reaction will have to be quicker if you are driving fast. It is only dangerous for impatient drivers who HAVE to get passed because they MUST get somewhere as soon as possible. Surley someones life is more important that getting somewhere as quick as possible.. Plus, why do people drive fast when there is no reason for them to be as driving slower saves fuel which means money too.
Well rfr10 ...yes, sorry, maybe I should've said by "slow" I dont mean within the speed limit :) ...
I was thinking of drivers who toddle along at 15-20mph (and it does happen) when the speed limit is 60. Often this is a much older person, who is also hesitant & unaware of other cars on the road. That can make a driver who sticks to the speed limit quite frustrated.
On the other hand ,I've often noticed that the person who is so desperate to get there faster and often tries to overtake a whole queue of traffic in a dangerous situation, can be found at a standstill just a few cars ahead not so long after... so they didn't get there faster after all, but could well have caused an accident by their driving.
I do think it would be good if new drivers (of whatever age) had plates to identify them for a year after passing the test. I didn't learn to drive until I was 30 and I was far from confident to begin with, but nobody would have mistaken me for a 17 year old! They proably thought I'd been driving for years! I quite often felt pressured into driving faster than I was comfortable with at the time. :~(
Well rfr10 ...yes, sorry, maybe I should've said by "slow" I dont mean within the speed limit :) ...
I was thinking of drivers who toddle along at 15-20mph (and it does happen) when the speed limit is 60. Often this is a much older person, who is also hesitant & unaware of other cars on the road. That can make a driver who sticks to the speed limit quite frustrated.
On the other hand ,I've often noticed that the person who is so desperate to get there faster and often tries to overtake a whole queue of traffic in a dangerous situation, can be found at a standstill just a few cars ahead not so long after... so they didn't get there faster after all, but could well have caused an accident by their driving.
I do think it would be good if new drivers (of whatever age) had plates to identify them for a year after passing the test. I didn't learn to drive until I was 30 and I was far from confident to begin with, but nobody would have mistaken me for a 17 year old! They proably thought I'd been driving for years! I quite often felt pressured into driving faster than I was comfortable with at the time. :~(
I thought they did hav plates for that now..
I thought they did hav plates for that now..
Aren't they optional though? Or have I got that completely wrong?:confused
Does anybody know what the minimum age to get a driving license is in other countries? I'd always thought that in some U.S. states for instance it was a bit younger than here:confused
ther is also a way to reduce Drink and drive and People with bad eysight and that is to supply a reliable cheap Public transport at the times when people need it ie don´t forget the Night journeys back home from the pub/Disco /restaurant its so often that one can`t go out because one has to drive back after such an event and being absolutly sober watching everybody els have a good time is not reall the best of things in the wold to do. but thats Life
I disagree that slow driving is just as dangerous. If you drive slow then there is a much smaller risk of you killing someone if you run them down PLUS your thinking reaction will have to be quicker if you are driving fast. It is only dangerous for impatient drivers who HAVE to get passed because they MUST get somewhere as soon as possible. Surley someones life is more important that getting somewhere as quick as possible.. Plus, why do people drive fast when there is no reason for them to be as driving slower saves fuel which means money too.
I think a lot of the problem is modern cars. Seat belts, anti-lock brakes, reinforced doors, airbags, all designed to make a driver feel safe. The wrecks I drove when I was young I didn't dare do more than 40mph in them.
Perhaps if they took out the drivers airbags and replaced them with a nice shiny steel spike stopping a few inches from the driver's heart we'd see a better standard of driving on our roads.
Something that appears not to be generally known, even by opticians, is that
It is a criminal offence to drive a motor vehicle if you cannot read a numberplate, in good daylight, from 20.5 meters (67 feet) or 20 meters (65 feet) where narrower characters are displayed.
This is taken from an email I received from the DVLA and can be confirmed on their website. I stopped driving for a while when I had cataracts and became uneasy that I was not seeing as well as I should have been, despite being told by doctor, optician and consultant that I was OK to drive. I had to find out for myself what the law was. It would be interesting to know how many people could take this test (it's easy enough to measure) and still continue driving within the law.
I think a lot of the problem is modern cars. Seat belts, anti-lock brakes, reinforced doors, airbags, all designed to make a driver feel safe.
It's true that with a lot of cars now you can feel a bit as if you're in a sort of moving armchair. Safe and comfortable.
Ads for cars obviously aim to make driving look like a pleasurable activity - well, they want to sell the cars, don't they? It's amazing how often they show somone driving all alone on a road -not another vehicle in sight!
Cars are so much more powerful and the roads so much busier than when I was 17! :(
Cars are so much more powerful and the roads so much busier than when I was 17! :(
I wonder how many deaths those grotty plastic reflecting posts they put along the A9 have caused. Was a time you had to drive slow on a dark night or corners lept up at you out of nowhere, now you can drive as fast as you like. I'm sure there wern't nearly so many cars parked in fields in a morning before they put them up.
The Angel Of Death
29-Jan-07, 20:11
I was thinking of drivers who toddle along at 15-20mph (and it does happen) when the speed limit is 60.
Exactly the point i was trying to make i know a someone that took there test before me when i sat mine and he failed for driving to slow within and outside the town as it was a hazard
I think you should look on an older driver doing 15 - 20 on a main road along the same lines as a tractor who can say they have come round a corner and come across a tractor doing 15 - 20 i know its happened to me and lets just say its a pant filling moment
I think you should look on an older driver doing 15 - 20 on a main road along the same lines as a tractor who can say they have come round a corner and come across a tractor doing 15 - 20 i know its happened to me and lets just say its a pant filling moment
I always assume there will be a tractor around a corner, never filled my pants over one yet. I always assume that cars at junctions are going to pull out infront of me too.
All horses kick, all guns are loaded and all drivers are idiots as far as I'm concerned.
Stargazer
29-Jan-07, 20:23
[I was thinking of drivers who toddle along at 15-20mph (and it does happen) when the speed limit is 60. Often this is a much older person, who is also hesitant & unaware of other cars on the road. That can make a driver who sticks to the speed limit quite frustrated.
[/quote]
Com'on Angela. Surely this is exaggerated. Give us a few examples.
[ That can make a driver who sticks to the speed limit quite frustrated.
But surely thats the point its the speed LIMIT not the required Speed
[quote=Stargazer;186146
Com'on Angela. Surely this is exaggerated. Give us a few examples.[/quote]
You would think so, I agree, but it's not - if I'd wanted to exaggerate I'd have said 5mph!:D
Maybe it doesn't happen in Caithness, but it certainly does in the quieter parts of Fife, or it did up to 2 years ago when I lived there. We'd be driving along and my husband would be saying to me "My God, I don't believe it, she's down to 15 now!" So I wasn't imagining it.
It didn't happen every day, but quite a lot, and it was usually a driver who unexpectedtly teetered out onto the road (luckily you knew to keep your eyes open for tractors and other slow moving vehicles) just ahead of you...:~(
Stargazer
29-Jan-07, 20:35
But surely thats the point its the speed LIMIT not the required Speed
I was quoting from an earlier post but it did not work properly. The tread seemed to be tending for 'oldies' driving at 15-20 mph to be the problem. But I cannot think of a single example in my driving experience that would make this a significant issue.
Stargazer
29-Jan-07, 20:41
You would think so, I agree, but it's not - if I'd wanted to exaggerate I'd have said 5mph!:D
Maybe it doesn't happen in Caithness, but it certainly does in the quieter parts of Fife, or it did up to 2 years ago when I lived there. We'd be driving along and my husband would be saying to me "My God, I don't believe it, she's down to 15 now!" So I wasn't imagining it.
It didn't happen every day, but quite a lot, and it was usually a driver who unexpectedtly teetered out onto the road (luckily you knew to keep your eyes open for tractors and other slow moving vehicles) just ahead of you...:~(
The roads up here are rather empty. Even if you catch up with someone its fairly easy to overtake. My issue is with inconsistent drivers that go at 40mph when you cant overtake then accelerate quickly at the first straight stretch.
I was quoting from an earlier post but it did not work properly. The tread seemed to be tending for 'oldies' driving at 15-20 mph to be the problem. But I cannot think of a single example in my driving experience that would make this a significant issue.
I agree that the speed limit should be the LIMIT.
However, I failed my driving test for driving too slowly!
After that my instructor told me I should aim at not driving too far below the speed limit, weather & other road conditions permitting, as it was dangerous.
The next time I passed.
But surely thats the point its the speed LIMIT not the required Speed
actually you will get failed on your test if you drive slowly, for holding up the traffic. you can be about 5mph below the limit, but anything more than that and you get a minor. if you do i consistantly you'll fail your test.
Driving slowly in certain places is more dangerous than goin fast - FACT. EG - on the A90 between Aberdeen and Dundee (most of the A9 is the same but less dual bits) there are tractors etc trundling along at less than 30 mph and cars battling along at 70 mph - when in the car most drivers expect all the traffic to be moving at a similar speed, until you suddenly realise that there is a tractor in front of your nose. Hence why agricultural vehicles, bicycles, horse drawn vehicles etc are banned from motorways.
I think that you will find that you failed your driving test for "Not making normal progress".
This has nothing to do with driving too slowly - It can be anything from unnecessary delay at junctions to holding up other road users through undue hesitancy.
Vehicles travelling slowly can be overtaken when it is safe to do so.
Speed limits are there for a purpose, and whilst I personally think a lot of them are wrong, Every person taught to drive correctly will drive according to the road conditions, and very often this is well under the limit applied to a particular section of road.
Road deaths are tragic, whatever the age of the victims.
Accidents don't just happen - They are caused.
Driving is an art - enjoy it and be safe.
Blazing Sporrans
30-Jan-07, 16:15
There are quite a few issues being discussed in this thread and it's quite enlightening to read them. My first point would be on the subject of drink/driving and an agreement that there could never be a zero alcohol level in blood, for previously given medical reasons. However we could reduce the current legal level of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 milliltres of blood or 107 milligrammes of alchol in 100 millilitres of urine) by 50% without necessarily impinging upon a person with a pre-existing medical condition's ability to drive (I'm not a doctor - that part comes courtesy of my sister-in-law who deals in Urology and Nephrology). It doesn't matter that alcohol contributes to only 12% of all road accidents. If we can extrapolate that figure and thereby conclude that it might also be a factor in 12% of all road fatalities (numbering consistently around 3800 annually), then we might be able to reduce road deaths by something in the region of 450. Again, I don't know who works these things out, but I've been told that every road death costs at least £1 million, but I don't know exactly what that figure encompasses.
Probationary plates are only optional, however should be compulsory. People tend to be more considerate when following learner drivers, knowing that they have been there before themselves and knowing and sympathising somewhat with what the learner is going through. New drivers go through a two year legal probationary period, where they can be disqualified by having their licences endorsed with a total of six penalty points as opposed to the standard twelve that the rest of us enjoy, so why not accompany this with the compulsory display of 'P' plates for the first two years? I know it already makes me more aware of another driver displaying them voluntarily. This could even be done without the introduction of new legislation, as insurance companies could make it a mandatory condition of insurance in all policies.
I found a wee article http://www.endsleigh.co.uk/web/media/motor/industry/young_drivers_17085872.html relating relating to statistics of young drivers being increasingly more involved in accidents generally.
As far as the argument of poor driving up in the Highlands goes, I have found the opposite to be the case. I have lost count of the number of times I have been driving through Glasgow or Edinburgh, leaving a gap of five or six feet between me and the vehicle in front, only to find some idiot trying to force their way in, somehow imagining that a twelve to fourteen foot car should easily squeeze into that space.
The one key thing that I was taught when learning to drive and the one thing that has always remained with me, is that even when 'making progress' you should always be able to stop in half the distance you can see in front of you and adjust your speed accordingly.
There are any number of factors that contribute to accidents, including HGV drivers who are limited to speeds of 40 mph in national speed limits and 50 mph on motorways or dual carriageways. They know that the GATSO type speed camera cannot differentiate between the sizes of vehicles and it's only the manned mobile camera units that can target them. They sit seven to eight feet above the road, in the full knowledge that they are in the category of driver least likely to be injured in an accident. They frequently drive at speeds between 50 and 60 mph and many, in my experience, are only too unwilling to let traffic overtake when the opportunity arises by speeding up to make the overtake more difficult. The consequential build up of frustration felt by any motorists following is what leads to them taking unnecessary risks in attempting to overtake and increases the likelihood of accidents occurring.
As far as badger's reference to the DVLA website and the eyesight test varying where narrower characters are displayed, I must admit to some confusion, as I have always understood that there is only one legal font that can be displayed on a car registration plate and that is the one that comes with all new cars. All these fancy variations are illegal. Possibly the narrower characters may refer to plates for motorcycles, which are permitted to be smaller than those displayed on cars but must still comply with minimum size requirements.
Finally, roll on the 27th February 2007, when all those caught using mobile phones when driving will be subject to the endorsable fine level of £60 fine with three penalty points as opposed to the non-endorsable fine of £30 and no points at present.
[quote=Blazing Sporrans;186370]There are quite a few issues being discussed in this thread and it's quite enlightening to read them. quote]
Well said! You've brought the various issues together wonderfully well and I agree with you 100% :D
My first point would be on the subject of drink/driving and an agreement that there could never be a zero alcohol level in blood, for previously given medical reasons. However we could reduce the current legal level of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 milliltres of blood or 107 milligrammes of alchol in 100 millilitres of urine) by 50% .
Blazing Sporrans, why not reduce the current levels by 99%, thus taking into consideration the medical reasons, but making it ileagal to drive after consuming Alcohol or Drugs.
How many of the accidents this weekend were down to "I only had a bit o Blaw Officer"?
Blazing Sporrans
30-Jan-07, 17:22
Blazing Sporrans, why not reduce the current levels by 99%, thus taking into consideration the medical reasons, but making it ileagal to drive after consuming Alcohol or Drugs.
How many of the accidents this weekend were down to "I only had a bit o Blaw Officer"?
Golach, would that it were so easy! To prosecute someone for driving while impaired through drink or drugs requires the opinion of a medical practitioner and unfortunately it appears too few are willing to even get to the stage of going to court to give evidence against a driver. The time gap/loss between stopping a suspect driver and obtaining the services of a doctor to carry out observations of the driver can also be crucial. Taking recreational and some medicinal drugs and then driving is illegal full stop, however this is not the case with alcohol, hence the introduction of the current legal limits. Driving while impaired can also be used in terms of alcoholic consumption too. Having been teetotal for some 23 years, I know that I could have one pint and then drive a car and probably still be under the legal limit for driving with alcohol in my breath/blood/urine as described in Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, I know that I'd be impaired as described an Section 4 of the Act and be driving illegally. The only problem with Section 4 offences is that the criteria imposed are up to the subjective interpretation of individual medical practitioners; there is no benchmark to apply or threshold to cross.
As regards the "illegal to drive after consuming alcohol" scenario, I would be delighted to back such a move, however common sense dictates that this would be impractical. We've already discussed that there could never be a zero alcohol limit, therefore the courts would be full of lawyers like Nick Freeman, arguing that their celebrity client had not in fact been drinking but had consumed some exotic combination of foodstuffs coupled with some hitherto unknown medical ailment that meant there was a greater concentration of naturally occurring alcohol in the bloodstream. After all, lab tests aren't yet sophisticated enough to determine whether the alcohol is from sherry trifle or a spiced rum and coke!
When lawyers like Freeman can get away with arguing that David Beckham can ignore speed limits to avoid the paparazzi, then it just goes to show we're going to hell in a handbasket as far as asking our courts to properly prosecute road traffic offences goes. You'd think Beckham would have learned from the example of Henri Paul, Princess Di and Dodi Fayed as to what can happen when you speed away from rogue paparazzi!
peedie wifie
30-Jan-07, 18:31
Too fast, too slow, inexperienced or experienced, I'm sure each and everone of us has made a mistake or had a moment's lapse in concentration. We may have been fortunate that no one has been hurt by our actions.
I can't imagine what the young lad in Perthshire who caused the deaths of 5 people by a moments irresponsibilty/bad judgement must be feeling. The police report says he was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident and seem to be putting the blame on him. He has a very long life to live with such tragedy.
I would gladly back any retriction imposed if it meant my children were less likely to be involved in a road accident, whether as a passenger in a car or as a driver.
Should there be a restriction on the number of passengers newly qualified drivers can have?
The one key thing that I was taught when learning to drive and the one thing that has always remained with me, is that even when 'making progress' you should always be able to stop in half the distance you can see in front of you and adjust your speed accordingly.
One thing I was taught when learning to drive was never to do anything which would cause another road user to alter course or speed. This seems to be generally ignored these days, especially down in Inverness where other drivers seem to have an irrational assumption that my brakes work.
Naefearjustbeer
30-Jan-07, 20:34
I know in some states in america kids are allowed to drive at a much younger age 14 I think. Does anyone know how the accident stats look for states where this is allowed. Is it better to learn to drive at a younger age where parents still have influence over what the kids are up too. A 17 year old in this country can be living independent of parental rules and guidance may have a well paid job and be funding a high power sporty car. A 14 year old will be less likely to have access to the money and will be driving whatever the parents allow.
Farmers sons who learn to drive at a young age in tractors do they feature heavily in the accident stats or do they look at driving as way to do a job and not a way to race around trying to impress girls. DO they have a lower accident risk than the average 17 year old?
Blazing Sporrans
30-Jan-07, 21:35
Too fast, too slow, inexperienced or experienced, I'm sure each and everone of us has made a mistake or had a moment's lapse in concentration. We may have been fortunate that no one has been hurt by our actions.
I take your point peedie wifie, however it's the magnitude of that mistake, error of judgement or lapse in concentration. I have made mistakes and I have made errors of judgement behind the wheel of a car, however I have made these errors within parameters that my brain has set for me and never, ever gambled with my life, nor any else's.
A major fault with our system is that there is no ongoing learning process, no refinement of skills and no ongoing testing phase beyond the initial driving test. Drivers pass their tests and then throw the Highway Code in the bin. Even the most basic things, such as stopping distances are forgotten by the majority within weeks. Couple this with young drivers who have no concept of their own mortality and think that watching Top Gear every week makes them the mutts nuts and it's a recipe for disaster. And I have to say that the main fault lies very much with the male element of society; testosterone x high speed = danger.
Another trouble with the modern era is that there is more disposable income for families, who then finance son or daughter in buying a car. There are many more cars on the road these days, especially for the younger driver (I always had to plead with my father for the keys to the family car) and this is the principle reason why the 17-25 year old age group are so over-represented in modern accidents statistics.
Naefearjustbeer
30-Jan-07, 22:40
I remember when I wanted to get my first car I wanted a SRi Or a GTe but my mother said remember you are paying all the bills for this car including the insurance in your own name. There was no way she was going to let me take her no claims discount away. SO insted of a GTe I went for a 1.2 litre standard model. I paid 3rd party fire and theft insurance as I couldnt afford fully comp and I treated my car fairly well for a young lad. I had a loan to pay back and if I wrote the car off I would had a loan to pay and no car to drive so I didnt want to risk losing it. I still drove too fast and did some silly things looking back at it but I was knowhere near as bad as many of the youngs guys that I used to run around with at the time. Between paying my keep to my mother and paying the loan back that was more than half my apprentice wages gone so I didnt have much spare cash to play with. These days all the youngsters appear to have fairly new cars all insured by mum or dad and very few of them pay much keep when they start work. It is little wonder they drive with no regard to themselves or other road users. They get so much handed to them on a plate and have no respect becaue of it. If you have to work hard to get something then you take a lot more care of it.
ywindythesecond
31-Jan-07, 02:02
And I have to say that the main fault lies very much with the male element of society; testosterone x high speed = danger.
Been looking through this thread, and this is what makes young people at risk. No cure found so far.
Good arguments Sporrans, but did you not refer in one of your posts to driving 5 or 6 feet behind a car and someone trying to cut in? And didn't you say in another about people passing their test and forgetting basic stopping distances? I recall that the highway code used to have an illustration on the back cover of stopping distances at various speeds. Thinking time, reacting time, stopping time. Regardless of speed, thinking time was always one second. How long does it take to travel 5 feet at 10mph? About one third of a second.
I get really threatened by people driving too close behind me. I have risks ahead and risks behind. It is safer to let them past at the first opportunity,and halve the risk.
Blazing Sporrans
01-Feb-07, 00:06
Good arguments Sporrans, but did you not refer in one of your posts to driving 5 or 6 feet behind a car and someone trying to cut in?
Sorry ywindy, I should have elaborated there - I meant in slow moving traffic. Every time I try and leave a safe gap rather than inch up to the back bumper of the preceding vehicle, some wally sees it as an invite to change lanes and muscle their way in. I should have made that more clear.
Another bad crash, what can we do about teenage drivers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6323367.stm
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.