old - Fazer Owners Club - old
General => General => Topic started by: Dave48 on 01 October 2012, 08:55:54 pm
-
Was reading a letter in the Telegraph motoring supplement from a reader asking why the Government doesnt operate such a scheme to ensure ongoing competence/fitness to drive. "Honest Johns" reply was that since about 50% of British residents hold a driving licence such a scheme would be unworkable. I would have thought that say a 10 year assessment neednt be too costly to implement and might go some way to improving the generally very poor standard of driving we all see & unfortunately sometimes suffer from. This could address a multitude of sins from defective uncorrected vision to dangerous habits/practices-but I suppose any benefits from such a scheme wouldnt be immediately apparent in the road safety/casualty stats so would probably be dismissed out of hand,whereas speed cameras can be a nice little earner for govenment,insurers(via increased premiums) etc. I would like to know how many are on the road with the wrong type of licence as witnessed in Police TV progs where theyre always nicking someone with a strange foreign provisional licence!
-
Does it really bother you how many people are on the road with a dodgy license l couldnt give a hoot personally. Driving is very simple HOWEVER when there are at least 30 million drivers on the road you are bound to get accidents (of ALL KINDS the odds are there) i dont think its quite as easy as saying " lets retest every ten year" because the 30 million+ dont get it right all the time and there can be many reasons for an accident other than competency btw !!
-
I have thought for a long time that retesting at regular intervals would be a good idea. It would at least make people (self included!) read the highway code a bit more often.
How about if the test is failed the cost of insurance goes up say 25% until it is passed again? Likewise, if passed drop the cost of insurance by 25%?
Also how about a real incentive to do further advanced training by bigger insurance cuts, not the few % as at the moment?
David. :eek
-
there can be many reasons for an accident other than competency btw !!
Yes, there's people driving who can barely see beyond the bonnet and haven't had an eye test in the last 20 years. There's people who have no idea of the rules of the road and think that two wheels should give way to four wheels. Then there's the ones who simply don't care about other's right of way or the ones who are driving vehicles which are beyond their ability to deal with. Of course there's the mobile phone users, the texters, the drunks, the drug users, the ones with anger management issues...
... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??
-
Also how about a real incentive to do further advanced training by bigger insurance cuts, not the few % as at the moment?
Hear hear!
IAM Surety (well, Adelaide Insurance actually) is supposed to give discounts to people who have passed their Advanced Test, but even *with* that discount they're still more expensive than the deal I can get through Bennetts.
-
I can think of one group that wouldn't be in favour....
insurance companies.
-
After 10 years the majority of drivers drivers think "I know it all already" so retesting wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, they would just slip back into their old habits the minute they've passed. More emphasis on better initial training/standards would help and how about a probational license that requires further assessment to be turned to full?
-
... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??
(Hope I've got this quote right - still learning!)
It must make some difference & if I'm one of the ones not in an accident because someone has had extra training I'm all for it!
David :)
-
How about insurance costs that actually reward those who don't claim? What a novel idea! :lol
How many times have you heard that your insurance premium has increased this year due to the amount of claims/whiplash scams etc perpetrated by others? The simple answer must surely be to increase the policy of those that do claim and reward those that don't. Perhaps you thought that's already the system in operation, but it can't be can it? I've not claimed since 1981 but each year my policy goes up by 15% or so.
On such a small island 30 million cars are going to bump into each other, especially when driven erratically, under the influence, or illegally. Speed camera's don't stop this from happening, Policemen on the beat do, so why the focus on speed cameras? (as if you didn't know ;) [size=78%]) [/size]
The root 'problem' if it were to be admitted is overpopulation I reckon, and the insurance companies are simply spreading the inevitable cost of that between all. Plus insurance companies don't only have exposure in the motor vehicle field but many others, which means that someone must pay to rebuild after floods etc, which although coming under home insurance are losses covered by the same companies. It's not a stretch to imagine that just as all our road tax isn't spent on roads, all our insurance premiums aren't spent on vehicle related compensation.
Given that I would suggest that the introduction of re-tests and so forth is a different issue entirely to insurance costs. Why retest someone that has never had an accident?
-
Most people take lessons and have a flick through the highway code before taking their test. Some, a couple of years later may decide to take another (bike, truck etc) and have another read through the highway code but many will never pick up a copy of it again.
Its true that you only learn to drive after you pass your test but there are many people out there who are a danger to themselves and others through medical (eyesight) or mental (just dont give a shite) issues and these are the ones that need to be picked up.
Retesting is one way of doing it but the best way os to get more plod out on the road. Over the last 10 years or so the number of police cars on the road has fallen to the point that you can drive from one end of the country to the other and probably not see a single plod car and definitely not see a plod traffic car due to speed scameras taking over the role. Speed Cameras do not take your picture if you are doing 35mph on the motorway when everyone else is doing 70. Speed cameras do not see you swerving dangerously becasue you have no control of your car. Speed cameras do not see you tailgating the other cars at 70mph (or even 30mph outside the schools) because some tw@t in central government a few years ago decided that speeding was themajor issue on teh roads and scameras could pick that up.
Me, I took my car test at 17, bike test at 18, IAM cars at 18 too and still have an active interest in what laws/rules change meaning when I see a new roadsign I dont ignore it if it havent seen it before, I find out what it means.
-
Let us remember that its not just competency that constitutes a road accident.Equipment Failure
Roadway Design
Poor Roadway Maintenance
Driver Behavior
What about Road Maintenance do you not think the roads of the UK, Scotland inparticular have some well up kept roads i mean the pot holes and rubble are non existent in these parts :lol . I'd rather kick up a riot and get them to at least sort out the fecking roads - for a start!!!. God dam i pay my road tax and million others too i dont see them keeping there end of the bargain - i dont see roads getting fixed
-
God dam i pay my road tax and million others too i dont see them keeping there end of the bargain - i dont see roads getting fixed
That because some ingenious fuckwit in government decided to disconnect the road fund tax from actually paying for road stuff and now we have the Vehicle Excise Duty - a general tax that can be spent on hookers bribes to the electorate every 4 years.
-
god dammit l wasnt at that meeting
-
I think it would be good to have compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years, if you pass the asesment you get cheaper insurance. I dont think retests would work. Most people know how they should drive, but as soon as you get a bit of traffic, or they are late for somthing the rules go out the window.
-
... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??
It must make some difference & if I'm one of the ones not in an accident because someone has had extra training I'm all for it!
Erm, I was being a little bit sarcastic there... :)
-
Why retest someone that has never had an accident?
Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!
-
That because some ingenious fuckwit in government decided to disconnect the road fund tax from actually paying for road stuff and now we have the Vehicle Excise Duty - a general tax that can be spent on hookers bribes to the electorate every 4 years.
Yeah, that was back in 1936 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Fund) yet still people think they "pay to use the roads" and have a go at cyclists because they don't "pay to use the road".
You are taxed on your ownership of a vehicle and have been for around three quarters of a century, but people still say it's "Road Tax"
-
Thats why its called VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY!! :lol
-
Why retest someone that has never had an accident?
Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!
That's just intrusive, more nanny state ideas we could do without. Target and educate those that need it, and leave alone those whose records show they don't. Were there anything wrong with their skills they'd be highlighted by points on their license or the accident records of insurers.
Why is it when people are coming up with these great ideas for road safety they never hit on the idea of restricting all road vehicles engines to a maximum of 70mph I wonder? Because it would affect everyone including those making the rules perhaps? There's a good case for it being the national maximum is 70. Yeh, I think that's a great idea too, perhaps you could have your vehicle governed while you sat your compulsory re-education?
I think it would be good to have compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years,
'Compulsory?' <shudder> You don't happen to be a driving instructor by any chance? :lol Would all these lessons be FOC then? And the subjects compelled to take them regardless of an exemplary driving record? You guys kill me.
-
Why retest someone that has never had an accident?
Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!
That's just intrusive, more nanny state ideas we could do without. Target and educate those that need it, and leave alone those whose records show they don't. Were there anything wrong with their skills they'd be highlighted by points on their license or the accident records of insurers.
I think it would be good to have compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years,
'Compulsory?' <shudder> You don't happen to be a driving instructor by any chance? :lol Would all these lessons be FOC then? And the subjects compelled to take them regardless of an exemplary driving record? You guys kill me.
Lol, What makes you think that .!! It would solve half the unemployment problem !! It would keep people up to date with the highway code, and changes to driving laws, even with exemplary driving record, you are never to old or wise to learn!
-
Hmmmm.... you're never too experienced to learn from someone with less experience eh? That's one from the 'Let's teach father how to fuck' school of thinking there Tex. To keep up with the highway code you only need to read one. :lol I can understand medicals or eyesight tests but not what's being suggested. Are you up for the governed 70mph maximum on all vehicles idea too? I bet I can make a better case for that than you can for testing people who don't need it.
-
Hmmmm.... you're never too experienced to learn from someone with less experience eh? That's one from the 'Let's teach father how to fuck' school of thinking there Tex. To keep up with the highway code you only need to read one. :lol I can understand medicals or eyesight tests but not what's being suggested. Are you up for the governed 70mph maximum on all vehicles idea too? I bet I can make a better case for that than you can for testing people who don't need it.
I did not say test, - - How many people read the highway code after they pass there test! Im not for the 70mph, but like you say there is good argument for it. How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out right !!!
-
compulsory 5 years :rollin retesting haha gd one :lol :lol
-
How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out right !!!
No! - You know it by them not having accidents. :lol
Isn't it odd that few appear to mind imposing compulsory this or that on others in the name of 'safety', yet no one wants to own a vehicle that is capable of no more than the national speed limit? Remember kiddies - Speed kills! :lol
-
How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out right !!!
No! - You know it by them not having accidents. :lol
Isn't it odd that few appear to mind imposing compulsory this or that on others in the name of 'safety', yet no one wants to own a vehicle that is capable of no more than the national speed limit? Remember kiddies - Speed kills! :lol
If you owned a vehicle that was capable of the national speed limit? on what road? dual carridgeway , or a 60 limit, You could still do 70 past a school and kill someone!! Its the driver that speeds! I passed my test in 1977, it was a lot different then. no theory, or hazzard p, and lots of changes. When i did the adi trainning i realised how much i did not know about driving. Scary
-
Coincidentally, that's the same year I passed my test. No, my point isn't to argue that you don't need to keep up to speed...er so to speak, but that each time you take a vehicle out on the road you are refreshing your skills. If you're not crashing you're doing something right. The speed limit thing will come in soon enough anyway, they already have plans for that, your vehicle will be governed by satellite link to do a maximum of 20mph, 30mph etc depending on it's location.
I'm all for less interfering and governing of peoples lives by the state not more.
-
You cant really go off accidents to judge a driver. you could have ten. and none of them your faultwould you be a bad driver?.you could cause ten and still claim to be accident free!. I agree with the satalites though. either that or average cameras .
-
Interesting to follow this thread to see where were going/not going. I believe that not only would such a scheme be unworkable but that it would be a bit like the MOT test-the vehicle may be ok on the day of test but develop a fault immediately after-we could perhaps drive to the REQUIRED STANDARD for the assessment & then revert to previous bad practice. Just based on daily observation surely most of us would agree there is a lot of scope for improvement but the difficulty remains in persuading people that the driving test is only a starting point not simply an obstacle to be overcome?
In an ideal world all road users would be courteous and considerate to others but it seems to me that as the pressure on road space increases-the "Im alright Jack" mentality takes over & hence the aggression & impatience & downright dangerous practices.
In the past the Government had regular road safety awareness campaigns for things like wearing seatbelts/drink driving/use of headlights in fog etc & there was a marked police presence on the roads.
Now it seems that all they need to do is put up speed cameras/cctv & tell us that "Speed Kills"-which we all know is not the entire story/truth.
Periodic testing/reassessments would only weed out the eyesight problems-a friend of mine is an optician & he is frequently shocked to discover people coming for eye tests with serious problems-cataracts/tunnel vision etc who are still driving-the system of course relies on self reporting of certain health conditions to DVLA.
Driver education is all well & good but only works if those being taught see the relevance.
I think the unfairness of the system is the relative ease in which inexperienced drivers can be in charge of powerful machinery by simply passing a very basic test of car control under controlled conditions with no further training(night/adverse weather/motorway etc) while the powers that be try to legislate motorcycling out of existence by discouraging young ridersfrom starting what is going to be a long & expensive process.
Any one who has taken the ADI training will know that at the start of process the trainee has their current driving assessed & this is then analysed-bad faults noted & eradicated & then taught to a proper standard. A good part of the theory test for ADIs consists of questions about psychology/learning process as teaching is the name of the game.
Someone said Driving is a simple process -yes the actual mastery of basic controls-but controlling a motor vehicle in real life driving & remaining safe requires a good deal of skill which depends on learning/experience.
So I believe its driver/rider psychology that is the key factor& thats beyond the scope of legislation. :rolleyes
-
That's just intrusive, more nanny state ideas we could do without. Target and educate those that need it, and leave alone those whose records show they don't. Were there anything wrong with their skills they'd be highlighted by points on their license or the accident records of insurers.
I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.
It also doesn't mean that their eyesight isn't failing or their reactions are slowing or their attention wanders etc etc. Remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to demonstrate your ability to get that privilege in the first place, I see nothing wrong with being required to prove that you're still fit to hold that privilege.
Why is it when people are coming up with these great ideas for road safety they never hit on the idea of restricting all road vehicles engines to a maximum of 70mph I wonder? Because it would affect everyone including those making the rules perhaps? There's a good case for it being the national maximum is 70. Yeh, I think that's a great idea too, perhaps you could have your vehicle governed while you sat your compulsory re-education?
This is nonsense as I'm sure you're well aware. There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"
-
Yes driving is very simple unless you have a problem. When you pass a driving test its allows you to travel on the roads because you show competency and confidence controlling a vehicle within legal limits. if you've done this once we dont need to do it again!!!! this all sounds like discrimination.
-
When you pass a driving test its allows you to travel on the roads because you show competency and confidence controlling a vehicle within legal limits. if you've done this once we dont need to do it again!!!! this all sounds like discrimination.
Passing a Driving Test simply shows that you have *once* demonstrated the *bare minimum* level of competency to be allowed out in charge of a car. Remember "Maureen from Driving School"? That woman was a menace on the road, yet she was again and again allowed to try demonstrate that she could achieve that bare minimum standard once.
But what after that? Given that she'd repeatedly shown a lack of competence and ability prior to passing that Test, is there any guarantee that, having passed, she wouldn't go straight back to how she used to behave on the roads??
-
On the subject of speed restriction devices(limiters). When they brought in compulsory speed limiters on vans up to 4.6tonnes GVW around 2007 I found it not only frustrating but occasionally downright dangerous. Example On Motorway approaching slip road with traffic say HGVs joining motorway. Pre-restrictor days would be able to move out to lane 2 with due regard to other traffic but with a safety margin of acceleration if required. At that time very few HGVs realised that vans were becoming speedlimited. In congestion with HGVs in Lanes 1 & 2 there was nowhere to put yourself. :'( :eek Oh yes, the Irish trucks were limited to 100kph(approx 64mph)which made life more stressful. Even fully laden the Merc Sprinter was perfectly safe @ 70mph so they could have set the limiter @ that speed and given us a bit of margin. The thinking behind limiters is sound as regards goods vehicles but a bit of common sense would have made life much simpler
-
I like to see you've picked the most outrageous example (and the the uk's worst example, fact! - as the programme was britains worst learner or something like that). I'II be honest l've never came across an example like her before. Those people easily get found out the hard way!!!
-
I wish she was an isolated case! Ive met more than a few over the years and I wouldnt get in a car with any of them. :eek Its not just a case of lacking essential psychomotor skills its the BELLIGERENT ATTITUDE and the refusal to accept that they could ever be even slightly wrong! If they can be on the roads what does it say about the standard of the basic driving test? Periodic reassessment might weed some of them out along with helping the estimated 300,000 people driving with uncorrected vision defects pay a visit to the opticians. Sorry cant agree that a once in a lifetime test is sufficient for a possible 60 year driving career
-
:agree
-
Good points made by all. :)
-
personally i think that would come under a MEDICAL rather than retesting!!!!!!!!!!!! aahhhh!!!!!!
-
If the government were concerned about saving lives they wouldn,t let old people die from the cold every winter , and start illegal wars , and the last thing our economy needs is more red tape and more costs [size=78%] [/size]
-
sorry rephrase that-
Poor vision has nothing todo with driving competency, a medical would be best suited to this situation. I certainly dont have a problem getting a medical. As i said earlier once passed a test i really dont need to prove i can do it again, there is no logic in that.
-
As i said earlier once passed a test i really dont need to prove i can do it again, there is no logic in that.
Next time you get on an aeroplane, ask yourself if the Pilot thinks the same way... :pokefun
-
ok your talking oranges and apples.
-
IMHO the problem with driving is that it is almost entirely self-regulated and you rarely, if ever, hear someone confess to being a bad driver.
For example, I think myself to be quite a competent cook. Why? Because nobody ever evaluates me.
Just imagine if I was put under scrutiny by Ramsey for half an hour.
Although my delusions and ineptitudes are most unlikely to affect anyone else.
Sadly it is a fact that we are NOT all born with the natural ability to be a safe and competent driver.
-
From the BBC News website today
The ABI said an 18-year-old was more than three times as likely as a
48-year-old to be involved in a crash
If they are only 3x more likely to have an accident, why do they pay 10x (or more) the insurance premium???
-
I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.
Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident. What more can you ask? As for eyesight tests and medicals I already said above that I can see the sense in those.
-
ok your talking oranges and apples.
Why? The difference is only one of degree.
If you are in control of something that could cause others to die if you get it wrong, why should you not be required to demonstrate that you're not a hazard to others?
-
IMHO the problem with driving is that it is almost entirely self-regulated and you rarely, if ever, hear someone confess to being a bad driver.
In a survey for safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (http://biasandbelief.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/why-there-are-so-many-idiots-on-the-road/)...!
-
Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident. What more can you ask?
I think I'd ask whether you are capable of driving (or riding!) without deliberately or through carelessness, recklessness or simple inability, causing others to have to rapidly adjust their speed or direction because of your actions.
If you pull out on someone at a roundabout and they have to slam on their brakes to avoid you, but it doesn't actually result in an accident, do you think that there's nothing wrong with that? If you do an overtake into on-coming traffic making someone have to swerve out of your way (but not physically crashing), is that acceptable? If you decide to do 60mph in a 30mph limit and nearly hit someone coming out of a T-Junction because you were going too fast, do you not think there might be a problem with your road use??
-
I think I'd ask whether you are capable of driving (or riding!) without deliberately or through carelessness, recklessness or simple inability, causing others to have to rapidly adjust their speed or direction because of your actions.
Yes to all of that.
If you pull out on someone at a roundabout and they have to slam on their brakes to avoid you, but it doesn't actually result in an accident, do you think that there's nothing wrong with that? If you do an overtake into on-coming traffic making someone have to swerve out of your way (but not physically crashing), is that acceptable? If you decide to do 60mph in a 30mph limit and nearly hit someone coming out of a T-Junction because you were going too fast, do you not think there might be a problem with your road use??
No to all of that. Need proof? See 31 years no claims (if only) clean license, clean conscience.
So now can you tell me why I might need compulsorily educating further? Oh, and the old chestnut you pulled back there about vehicles being able to do 70 in a 30 still doesn't answer the point - do you want all vehicles limited to 70mph on the grounds that it is the legal maximum? There can be no possible excuse for going any faster regardless of what speed you do in town etc, so how about the legislation 'in the name of safety' starts with that?
What say you.
-
I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.
Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident. What more can you ask? As for eyesight tests and medicals I already said above that I can see the sense in those.
.
Agreed, but how will you inforce it? if you dont like manaitory
-
I think it's mainly attitudes that are at fault with most dodgy driving antics, like people playing the game to get out've jail people will play the game to get passed any tests but it prob wont change their attitude once back on the road by themselves again,
I would agree to having some periodic highway code updates through the post or maybe an online highway code test to highlight some simple but commonly misinterpreted rules,
A pet hate of mine is people commonly unable to use roundabouts properly, even simple ones, i used to go crazy about it but now i just expect them to do it wrong as ive realised that most of them actually dont realise they are in the wrong lane and would probably even argue that they were in the right.
-
Yes, one of my pet hates, late indication, or non!! And they will argue the toss even if they are wrong.
-
I think I'd ask whether you are capable of driving (or riding!) without deliberately or through carelessness, recklessness or simple inability, causing others to have to rapidly adjust their speed or direction because of your actions.
Yes to all of that.
If you pull out on someone at a roundabout and they have to slam on their brakes to avoid you, but it doesn't actually result in an accident, do you think that there's nothing wrong with that? If you do an overtake into on-coming traffic making someone have to swerve out of your way (but not physically crashing), is that acceptable? If you decide to do 60mph in a 30mph limit and nearly hit someone coming out of a T-Junction because you were going too fast, do you not think there might be a problem with your road use??
No to all of that. Need proof? See 31 years no claims (if only) clean license, clean conscience.
Which is absolutely no proof at all. You could drive (or ride) like a complete twunt, carve people up, speed, do foccing hand-brake turns in the middle of the M25 and still, if you're lucky, get away with all of that with a clean licence etc (your conscience is your own business). It does *NOT* mean that you're a good road user!
So now can you tell me why I might need compulsorily educating further?
Who said anything about "educating"? I said you (and everyone else) should need to *prove* that you can still drive to an acceptably safe standard. And, yes, that includes me and all bikers too, before you start on that one. Simply saying "well I've done this for X many years and not had an accident" is not proof.
Oh, and the old chestnut you pulled back there about vehicles being able to do 70 in a 30 still doesn't answer the point - do you want all vehicles limited to 70mph on the grounds that it is the legal maximum? There can be no possible excuse for going any faster regardless of what speed you do in town etc, so how about the legislation 'in the name of safety' starts with that?
Erm, it was *you* who tried to pull that old chestnut, not me! And I've already addressed it once, I'm not going to give a different answer just because you're trying to pull it again.
-
A pet hate of mine is people commonly unable to use roundabouts properly, even simple ones, i used to go crazy about it but now i just expect them to do it wrong as ive realised that most of them actually dont realise they are in the wrong lane and would probably even argue that they were in the right.
Add to that people that think the national speed limit for cars on a single carriageway is 50mph >:
The other party's insurance company who I am in the process of claiming off for my accident is trying to get out of paying because I was undertaking and entered a box junction. I was undertaking because the left lane (bus lane, motorbikes are allowed in it) was empty and the right lane was stationary (highway code rule #163). I entered the box junction because my lane was empty (rule #174). Do the people who deal with motor claims day in day out actually not know the rules of the road either or are they just trying to wiggle out of it by any means?
I find the best thing to do is assume that everyone else is going to drive like a retard, then at least when they do something stupid at least I'm ready for it.
-
Grahamm what you're saying here doesn't make sense. You appear to be saying that a clean license and unblemished driving record over many years means that you are still just as likely to be a person that simply goes out and drives like a lunatic. Am I understanding that right?
Given that's the premise, how often do you feel such a person might pull off a stunt like that before coming unstuck? Once? Twice? Forever? If forever I'd like to understand how, and if not I'd like to understand why you believe they would do it occasionally? Especially given that all the evidence points otherwise?
Under your position everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That's deemed an unacceptable premise even when dealing with murderers, so why so for motorists? Were insurance companies to operate under your logic there would be no such thing as a no claims bonus. You are advocating the re-appraising of all, rather than incentivising good drivers by being exempt, and discouraging bad driving by retesting or re-appraising those with bad records.
Erm, it was *you* who tried to pull that old chestnut, not me! And I've already addressed it once, I'm not going to give a different answer just because you're trying to pull it again.
I'm afraid you'll have to humour me on this one then because I must have missed your answer. All I recall is you stating that regardless of the top speed of a vehicle it can also go a lot slower, but still break any urban limit imposed. Was that your answer? If it was then you appear to have answered a question I didn't ask. What I asked was:
'Should vehicles be limited to the 70mph maximum speed as a safety measure?"
As far as I'm aware you didn't answer that. You appear to have body-swerved into speaking of urban safety and driver awareness while completely ignoring motorway driving and the excess speeds involved. Kind of a huge elephant in your room though isn't it? The government could make an excellent case for the 70mph thing as a large percentage of driving is by motorway. If it's all truly about road safety and not creeping nanny state bullshit then you should be all for it. So, are you? Fancy a 70mph FZ1?
Or is the truth that the government wouldn't dare restrict vehicles to the legal maximum as it would harm both the economy and their own revenue in fines, thus making the safety issue pure hypocrisy? Perhaps also the retesting idea would be a rather lucrative business for a number advanced motorist type examiners, who would naturally see it as a great idea?
-
Do the people who deal with motor claims day in day out actually not know the rules of the road either or are they just trying to wiggle out of it by any means?
They're probably hoping that you don't know the rules of the road and will think "oh, I must have been in the wrong then" and drop the claim.
I find the best thing to do is assume that everyone else is going to drive like a retard, then at least when they do something stupid at least I'm ready for it.
I can agree with that!
-
Grahamm what you're saying here doesn't make sense. You appear to be saying that a clean license and unblemished driving record over many years means that you are still just as likely to be a person that simply goes out and drives like a lunatic. Am I understanding that right?
Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written or do you just skim it and then your mind fills in (or makes up) what you think you would have like them to have written and then you create Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) arguments based on that?
Go back and read my posts again and actually try to *comprehend* them and you'll find all your answers are already in this thread.
-
Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?
Yes Grahamm, even what you write. :)
Go back and read my posts again and actually try to *comprehend* them and you'll find all your answers are already in this thread.
I thought I hadn't missed the answer but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and went back as instructed to, or was that ordered (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/command) to? Painful as it was to have to re-read all the evasive reasoning you have been using I did do, and oddly enough found no direct answer to my question. Fancy that. The only thing I can find is the bit below.
There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"
Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit? And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?
So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts. :)
I said you (and everyone else) should need to *prove* that you can still drive to an acceptably safe standard. Simply saying "well I've done this for X many years and not had an accident" is not proof.
Do you know THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)word Grahamm? :)
-
Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?
Yes Grahamm, even what you write. :)
And yet still you fail to comprehend.
There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"
Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit?
Yes, Rusty, it *is* your lack of comprehension (unless, of course, you've swallowed the Government's argument that "Speed kills" as if it's a fact).
What matters is not absolute speed, but inappropriate speed for the conditions. Come, answer me this: is 30mph less dangerous than 70mph? If so, is doing 30mph past a school when the kids are leaving less dangerous than doing 70mph on an empty motorway?
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make doing 30mph past that school safer? No, of course not.
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to do that speed on a crowded and wet motorway in driving rain in the dark? No, of course not.
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to drive at that speed in the fog? No, of course not.
Restricting speed in that way does nothing for road safety, it is *inappropriate* speed for the *conditions* that is really what is dangerous.
If you have road users who fail to adjust their behaviour to the prevailing conditions because they blithely think that "well I've passed my test so I can drive" that is where the danger exists and that's why I said it's nonsense.
I thought you would be aware of this, but perhaps I was mistaken.
And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?
Lol! Oh deary me, Rusty, I think you might find I've been using terms such as Straw Man, False Dilemma, Ad Hominem and many others for a *LONG* time now :lol
Look, here's one from the old Foc-U Yuku forums back in 2007 (http://fazerowners.yuku.com/reply/81668/Ian-Huntley-Liver-Failure-A-Moral-Question-and-debate#reply-81668) and if I could be bothered to find a link to let me search for the old Common Room echo of the Fidonet Bulletin boards on Usenet from 20 years ago, I could show you an example from that too.
So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts. :)
But, yet again, you fail to comprehend.
The Right of Presumption of Innocence (you could try searching on that term linked to my name too, BTW, and find that it's a Right I strongly support) is to do with Criminal Law, it has nothing to do with the *privilege* (it's not a Right) of being allowed to be in control of a vehicle on the road.
Do you know THIS ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism[/url])word Grahamm? :)
Do you know the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) site, Rusty? FYI on that site I score -0.3 on the Left Wing/ Right Wing scale, but -7.75 on the Authoritarian/ Libertarian scale.
I am entirely willing to stand up for Rights, but I always remember that there are also Responsibilities to consider too. If you are going to be in control of a vehicle, you have the *responsibility* to control that vehicle in a way that does not risk harm to others. As such it is, similarly, your responsibility to ensure that your skills are adequate to doing so. Unfortunately not everyone considers this and thus it becomes necessary to enforce those responsibilities.
We already have such enforcement, for example when someone is banned from driving and then has to take another test to prove(!) that they can act responsibly on the roads again. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that they should not be required to take another test because "well, they've passed one already"?
If not then it is only a matter of degree that we are arguing about.
-
its all well and good some euro mp demanding that we all take a re-test (because if it does ever happen thats who will make uk do it )(i see on news tonight the uk is facing blackouts in a couple of years time because we got to shut down so many power stations to keep BRUSSELS happy)but what happens if like me who does a 70 mile commute to work ,has to do a re-test ....and fails !!! :'(
goodbye job,goodbye home ,and family ,thanks a lot eec
-
which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
-
which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
Perhaps the part that likes to uses Should a lot when it ought to be ought. :)
And yet still you fail to comprehend.
Oh but I do comprehend, only too well. You have once again thrown up a barrage of repetition, restating the very same things you claim answered my original question. They didn't then, and they din't now, and should you reiterate them for a third time they still won't. I have not once asked you what are your views on relative urban impact speeds, or driving within prevailing conditions. I asked you should all motor vehicles be governed to a maximum speed of 70 mph Grahamm? Not anything else. If yes then say so, and if no say why not when speeding is a major factor in driving accidents and our maximum limit is 70mph?
I fully understand the balance of rights and responsibilities, but what you are advocating is the trampling of the rights of those who have paid good heed to their responsibilities. You are hailing a one size fits all solution to a problem that relates to a minority, albeit a growing one. I would therefore like to periodically search the homes of all Muslims as it is up to them to prove they are not terrorists - is that how it works?
Again it's not the safety aspect I disagree with you on, it's the premise. What you have said makes a nonesense of no claims bonuses, for the position is that no matter how long you've been driving - who knows what you'll do tomorrow. Answer = Nobody! So stop trying to legislate for it.
-
Folk are just dicks, thats the main problem, dicks to you on the phone,dicks to you in the supermarket and dicks to you on the road,
The only thing that changes is number of dicks increasing all the time,
I was waiting behind 2 cars earlier at a 2 lane standard roundabout, a bike filtered through the middle of the 2 leading cars and stopped which i felt was fair enough, the 2 dicks in the cars started creeping forward to try intimidate him almost in unison even though they didnt know each other, he obviously wasnt intimidated by the 2 massive dicks either side of him and fair play even though it was pouring with rain and he was surrounded by wet angry dicks he smoked them off the lights without holding anyone up despite their frantic attempts to knock him over,
I dont know if what the bike did was legal, i dont even care because what the car drivers did was just typical of the dickish behaviour we all see every day.
The moral of the story......these dicks dont need advanced training....they need shot! :D
-
What worries me is the things people do out there to make their or other peoples life harder. They lack the scope of seeing the bigger picture or the implications of there decisions (of any subject by the looks of things).
-
Folk are just dicks, thats the main problem, dicks to you on the phone,dicks to you in the supermarket and dicks to you on the road,
The only thing that changes is number of dicks increasing all the time The moral of the story......these dicks dont need advanced training....they need shot! :D
:lol :lol I was only thinking today how some times I find people inspiring, and other times I could just do without them altogether.... usually both in the same day. :lol
-
which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
You do not have the right to drive a car, you must past a test to be allowed to do it.
You do not have to pass a test to have the right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence etc etc etc.
-
Oh but I do comprehend, only too well. You have once again thrown up a barrage of repetition, restating the very same things you claim answered my original question. They didn't then, and they din't now, and should you reiterate them for a third time they still won't.
Oh but Rusty, they *do*, you just don't want to listen to them. Oh and BTW it seems that you *have* swallowed the Government's nonsensical rhetoric because you say "speeding is a major factor in driving accidents"!
Please try to understand the difference between "speeding" (simply going above an arbitrary posted limit) and "inappropriate speed for the conditions" and then you will understand that I have already answered you.
PS I'm still not going to address your Straw Man arguments.
-
I dont know if what the bike did was legal,
Legal? Yes.
Advisable in the conditions you described? Probably not.
-
"You don't understand"
'No, you don't understand'
"Oh but I do understand, its you that's not understanding"
'Oh, but you don't understand. As I understand it'
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand....
Which one of you can actually get their pee pee the farthest!?!?!?!?!?!
-
Noggythenog mentioned roundabouts as a pet hate. I think a lot of road users "blindly" follow the road markings arrows/place names so on a large multilane one they will find themselves in the "wrong"lane & cut across. If you follow the Highway Code re lane positioning,signalling you will be frequently cut-up by the " confused.com" types who consider youre doing it wrong! :eek
If you want an example of road users not thinking about their actions look @ the way some of them approach roundabouts(large open view).I often see people drive up to the entry point lines AND STOP! even when its clear of traffic & safe to enter junction. Thought the idea of roundabouts was to speed up/improve traffic flow apart from the ones where theyve had to introduce traffic lights which is a bit self-defeating!
Reading all the posts on this thread its clear that we are never all going to agree-indeed its good to have healthy debate. Seems to me that the government can legislate to its hearts content but in the final analysis its road users attitude that is the important factor in making the roads safer and until I see evidence that things are improving will still assume theyre all out to get me :'(
-
Yesterday was driving cage locally in 30mph limit along road very little traffic(late morning), visibility excellent behind an "old" fellow who drove @ 20mph or slower for 1 mile. There were no opportunities for overtaking-bollards etc. As we approached a mini-roundabout he stopped completely before he could have had a clear view of the junction and then shot across without looking right or left. Usually the focus is on speeders but I can see that his driving could be a contributary factor in an accident. But until he is involved in such will continue to drive without realising that going too slowly can be dangerous. If he cant see/react at prevailing speed limit hes a danger but his driving isnt going to be assessed unless he is involved in a serious accident. Dont think the idea of self-reporting medical conditions to DVLA is sufficient. And before anyone says "what about his human rights?" consider it could be you knocked off your bike at a junction by his driving. If I met the required standard to pass the test in 1966 theres no future guarantee that I will still be able to do so 46 years later especially if Ive never been eye-tested! :eek
-
Ah so you lost your right to drive when they introduced a drivng test in 1935. So you lost your right in 1935, i dont get how you can loose what was a right? Grahamm can you explain that. Cheers
-
Please try to understand the difference between "speeding" (simply going above an arbitrary posted limit) and "inappropriate speed for the conditions" and then you will understand that I have already answered you.
I fully understand the premise of inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions Grahamm. You are saying that despite having a maximum speed discretionary considerations need to be made within that maximum. I don't see why you think that is something so difficult for others to grasp?
The point you don't seem to be addressing is the point I'm making. Which is that of record. The government puts any new legislation under the larger umbrella of 'road safety'. That's their justification for the introduction of new intrusions on personal liberty, after all who can argue if it makes the world a safer place? Therefore we must wear seatbelts, observe 70 mph speed limits, undergo MOT's and a myriad of other things all within that broad road safety justification.
Now you're saying the government are bullshitting, and I'm not going to argue as that's what governments do for a living. You won't address the 70 mph maximum question because both you and I know it is a complete fallacy that 'speed kills' just as it is that 'alcohol kills', - it's all down to when and how you use it.
Driving examiners are charged with training people to a standard that is deemed competent to drive on our roads. If this isn't happening then the standard required needs to be raised before one can drive. That's number one. Someone failing their test must undergo a retest, which means a system is already in place.
Inexperience causes accidents due to youthful over confidence, or lack of the experience in adapting driving to driving conditions. Such accidents result in increased insurance premiums, and/or points on the licence. I dare say a lesson is learned too. The potential for huge additional costs to young drivers go some way to encouraging caution.
Medical examination, eye tests and possibly hearing tests will address natural atrophy of those faculties. I agree that these should be introduced.
Inconsiderate, aggressive, abusive or downright dangerous drivers are out there. It is a character trait. It won't be cured by sitting them down and talking to them, they're just like that If and when they cause accidents, they get points, bans, dearer insurance and so on. Therefore, as before there is a system in place.
The final two groups consist of uninsured/banned dickwads in a £50 car from the auctions, and those who drive well, don't speed, have lots of experience and are rewarded with cheaper insurance as the assessors consider them to be a low risk. In the first instance they won't even be turning up to your proposed new re-test scheme. In the second these are people who are doing everything right, have demonstrated that they have been doing so for a number of years, and just want to go about their business.
So here we have it. The point I am making is this:
You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is bullshit, and that we can (and do) travel at speeds in access of that in complete safety depending on the conditions and situation. Right? But although you or I may be capable of doing so we can't, because we are restricted to 70 mph by law.
What you are proposing then is a similar situation. We know that some people are bad drivers, we know that some are inexperienced, and we know that yet more just don't give a shit. And as mentioned there are already mechanisms in force that deal with this'
So like the blanket 70mph limit that you know is bullshit but won't come out and say so, you would like to see a blanket re-test that applies to all and tests the good with the bad. So your argument consists of a strange schism in that what you seem to be saying is you know the 70 limit is nonesense and restricts those will the knowledge and ability to safely exceed it, yet you want to introduce retesting system that includes those with the knowledge and proven ability to avoid accidents.
You can't have it both ways mate.
PS I'm still not going to address your Straw Man arguments.
-
Ive had a brainwave :eek
psychometric testing..........if you're a dick you dont get a licence....but the government can't be in charge.....coz they're all dicks,
the police can make up a new offence......'being a dick'
the penalty...........being sent to the houses of parliament to join all the other dicks! and of course loss of licence.
how to get your licence back......stop being a dick! and complete tests of all things honour and courtesy...and donate money to FOC for shiny bike bits! :b
-
Question to anyone that things compulsary re-tests should be introduced... should it just be for cars or should it be for each category?
From the BBC News website today
The ABI said an 18-year-old was more than three times as likely as a
48-year-old to be involved in a crash
If they are only 3x more likely to have an accident, why do they pay 10x (or more) the insurance premium???
Their accidents tend to cost more maybe?
-
None. :lol
[size=78%]To be honest, I'm not sure I understand....[/size]Which one of you can actually get their pee pee the farthest!?!?!?!?!?!
Up a wall? Depends how tall you are in the first place. ;)
-
I wrote to my MP some years ago on the same subject. he made all the right noises but did now't
Good idea but a political hot potatoe
-
Ah so you lost your right to drive when they introduced a drivng test in 1935. So you lost your right in 1935, i dont get how you can loose what was a right? Grahamm can you explain that. Cheers
Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with? Please, go and troll somone else.
Cheers.
-
[Snip]
So here we have it. The point I am making is this:
Oh goody!
You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is bullshit,
Erm, excuse me? What on earth gives you the idea that I "won't openly admit" that the 70mph legislation is bullshit? Look, I tell you what, if it will make you happier:
THE 70MPH LEGISLATION IS BULLSHIT!!!
There, better now?
But there's a difference between that and *your* proposal of compulsory 70mph limiters on vehicles which was also bullshit.
and that we can (and do) travel at speeds in access of that in complete safety depending on the conditions and situation. Right? But although you or I may be capable of doing so we can't, because we are restricted to 70 mph by law.
Umm, no, we *can* do that, albeit not legally, because that's what the law says, but, again, there's a difference between the law saying "you must not travel faster than 70mph" and a physical device being introduced to ensure that you *cannot* travel faster than 70mph.
So like the blanket 70mph limit that you know is bullshit but won't come out and say so, you would like to see a blanket re-test that applies to all and tests the good with the bad. So your argument consists of a strange schism in that what you seem to be saying is you know the 70 limit is nonesense and restricts those will the knowledge and ability to safely exceed it, yet you want to introduce retesting system that includes those with the knowledge and proven ability to avoid accidents.
You can't have it both ways mate.
Oops, looks like *another* Straw Man argument from Rusty...!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say we have a competition where we both roll a 6 sided dice and the winner is the one who rolls it the most times without getting a six.
You roll it five times, then get a six. I roll it twelve times before I get a six. Does that mean that I have a "proven ability" to avoid getting sixes? Well, no, it just means I got lucky.
In the same way, someone can drive like a twunt yet "get lucky" and manage to avoid having an accident. Does that prove that they're a good driver? Well, no.
What I want is for everyone who is on the roads to have a demonstrable level of skill and to *continue* to have that level of skill. If the price of that is for them to have to demonstrate it again after X Years, I have no problem with that.
What you seem to want, however, is to consider that anyone who hasn't had an accident to be a "good driver" because they *once* passed a test (even though it could have been many years ago). Why not just go the whole hog and say that *NOBODY* needs to have a test and that they should *NOT* have to take a test UNTIL they have an accident? It makes about as much logical sense.
(NB this post may contain irony...)
-
The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
-
The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
Of course I didn't because it's a stupid question. Please show me *ANYTHING* anywhere which says (or has said) that you have (or have ever had) the Right to drive a car and I'll answer it. But I won't be holding my breath.
-
which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
You do not have the right to drive a car, you must past a test to be allowed to do it.
You do not have to pass a test to have the right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence etc etc etc.
ok you said above you dont have the right to drive a car - based on the fact you need to pass a test, ok. In turn making it a privilege, great. HOWEVER what l'm implying is - a driving test was introduced not that long ago so. so was driving it a privilege BEFORE the test was introduced or a right? For example, and a real analogy-
l own a knife. Its my right to have, own and use this knife. 5 years later, you now need to sit a competency test to gain a license to own and use a knife. Is it then now deemed a privilege because you now ned to sit a test? Even though before they enforced a license it wouldnt have been classed a privilege??
Does this make sense.
-
Does this make sense.
What makes sense is that you don't understand what a "Right" is.
Under English Common Law, everything that is not explicitly forbidden or controlled by law is permitted. That, however, does *NOT* make it a Right!
You never had the right to drive a car, but up until 1935 it was not controlled by law. It now is. If you pass the test you have the privilege under law of driving a car, not the right to do so.
Clear?
-
Cheers for that Grahamm. Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?
-
The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
A barking dog requires no response ;)
-
Yes yes Chillum, very good.
-
I disagree, I take it as a right to respond to barking dogs.
-
Cheers for that Grahamm.
You're welcome.
Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?
I've been a supporter and defender of civil rights and liberties for a very long time, so I've done the arguments, seen the counter points, checked the facts, read the legislation etc etc over the years.
Consequently I've developed my positions and opinions based on that and have had a lot of practice in defending them against, for instance, people who think that the only Rights you should be permitted are the one that *they* agree with and most probably only if you're a person from a group which they approve of as well.
And when someone starts deliberately mis-reading or misrepresenting my position to make a ridiculous Straw Man argument, it tends to annoy me :)
-
l'm in no way implying l have a belief in a "strawman" theory (call it what you wish) however i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief (as far fetched as the idea and opinion may sound). In fact what i have been doing is reading way too much Jean Jacques Rousseau.
-
Never mind the straw man, I'm hoping this turns into the wicker man
-
i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief
I have no doubt that some people won't believe this, but (as I've said before in the past) I am perfectly willing to change my views on a subject if someone can provide a logical, reasonable and factual argument for why my position is wrong.
However the point is simply that I've already *done* that over the course of 20 or more years of discussing subjects like this in forums, so a argument is going to have to be pretty damn convincing to achieve that.
-
i haven't read this thread but from the other one you had recently and the length of this one it seems that you like stirring it up a bit :lol
-
:rolleyes
-
ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government legislation for 20 years?
-
:lol
Dug? meet burst baw. Burst baw? Meet Dug
-
ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government legislation for 20 years?
Err, neither.
-
:lol