View Full Version : Bad Drivers
Are you listed here (http://www.baddriving.com/default.asp)
Nope but i think it's bad driving day today... people getting ****ed off for doing 30 in a 30, wtf is wrong with some people... moved into an NSL zone and the prat was miles behind :rolleyes:
Yes, people who plod along at 30 really annoy me as well. :)
No, but I am damn sure i could make some reports....
Gotta lot of miles to do tomorrow, will get the mrs to take a pen n paper...
;)
The more miles you do, the more idiots you get exposed to...
__________________
Yes, people who plod along at 30 really annoy me as well. :)
Especially the ones that shoot out in front of you in a 60 and then phut along.... at 45...
:mad:
nothing wrong with 30mph i do it all the time but it cost a lot in shockers and springs damn speed bumps
What really annoys me (in 30 zones) is people who slow down to 20 when they see a speed camera - the limit is 30, not 20. :grind:
What really annoys me (in 30 zones) is people who slow down to 20 when they see a speed camera - the limit is 30, not 20. :grind:
couldnt agree more you can do atleast 33 without a ticket
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 01:41
There's a really cool stretch of road near here where the speed limit is 19mph :) Of course, I say cool.....
__________________
Just found the picture, taken with a mobile phone so not that great sorry.
Did you personally take that picture, or have you seen it with your own eyes ? I would suspect it to be a hoax if not.
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 01:45
It's definately not a hoax.
A friend took it with her phone and sent it to me, I have since spoken to ther people who have also commented (independently, and they don't know this friend anyway) on it.
It's a (fairly) new housing development (the developers are styling it as a new village/town).
I don't know how they ended up with that sign though.
makikomi
09-07-2005, 02:14
Just wondering if the 19 was because they wanted to make the speed limit 30km per hour:
30 kilometer/hour = 18.6411358 mile/hour (mph)
If so, that's bloody ridiculous - may as well say 20mph.
Besides, we use MILES per hour in this country.
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 02:14
I thought about that as well. Wondered if they had somehow got a bit confused with what they were ordering.....
What really annoys me (in 30 zones) is people who slow down to 20 when they see a speed camera - the limit is 30, not 20. :grind:
And something that annoys me is people that think a Speed *LIMIT* is actually a *REQUIREMENT*!
The limit is the *maximum* speed you are allowed to travel at. It is not *obligatory* to travel at that speed.
If people realised that, we might have fewer Road Rage (although a friend prefers the term "Tarmac Tantrum" and I can see why!) incidents.
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 02:36
Didn't think you drove Graham (oh, and I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to make sure I understand your point of view)?
Didn't think you drove Graham (oh, and I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to make sure I understand your point of view)?
What does my driving or not driving have to do with the subject?
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 02:43
What does my driving or not driving have to do with the subject?
Whether or not you drive will affect how you view the issue. I am trying to understand if your prior comment regarding speed limits was from the point of view of someone who drives, or of someone who doesn't.
What does my driving or not driving have to do with the subject?
Whether or not you drive will affect how you view the issue.
I don't see why. I'm quite capable of viewing the situation objectively whether I drive or not and you don't have to be a driver to know that speed limits are exactly that *limits*, not *requirements*.
Mark posts about 10 gallons of cold water chill out guys
And something that annoys me is people that think a Speed *LIMIT* is actually a *REQUIREMENT*!
The limit is the *maximum* speed you are allowed to travel at. It is not *obligatory* to travel at that speed.and your point is ?
That you can go slower then the speed limit if you wish.
On that point I agree there, BUT the bone pick is, that people who do so generally do it on a decent road, in reasonable conditions, with good visablity, which shows they are not fully confident on the road, I am a relativly new driver and I can hold 30 in a 30 and 40 in a 40 and do about 65mph behind a HGV on a motorway.
These drivers who do 20 in a 30 for a camera, or 45 in a NS zone are in my view unconfident so they slow down to cope with the roads, or slow down because they are scared of a camera, again because they don't trust there driving.
Sign of a poor driver who could use lessons again, or someone who is perhaps confident but unsure of the road they are on.
SlackDad
09-07-2005, 09:16
Yes, people who plod along at 30 really annoy me as well. :)
Why?
__________________
Didn't think you drove Graham (oh, and I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to make sure I understand your point of view)?
Nor do any of the many children killed or injured on our roads every year. We all live in a world dominated by the motor car so whether or not you actually drive is irrelevant.
One thing with drivers on the road and it is all drivers not just a certain age group or gender, is the lack of admittance, many drivers make a mistake ( wrong lane, do not check mirrors, do not indicate etc.. ) and yet they will give "you" abuse with the normal immature finger signs when your in the right and perhaps honking your horn, in annoyance or to warn them they are about to swipe you off the road.
That bugs me.
Also the fact I can be doing 70mph on the motorway and indicate to pull into the outside 3rd lane to overtake a slow middle lang hogger, yet I cannot do this because everyone coming down is doing about 90mph, totally oblivious to the dangers they put themselves in.
And something that annoys me is people that think a Speed *LIMIT* is actually a *REQUIREMENT*!
The limit is the *maximum* speed you are allowed to travel at. It is not *obligatory* to travel at that speed.
If people realised that, we might have fewer Road Rage (although a friend prefers the term "Tarmac Tantrum" and I can see why!) incidents.
In general I would have to agree but if it was meant in reply to Paul M's post then I dissagree. You see if these people did it all the time, while annoying would at least be consistant, however, most people who drop to 20 in a 30 zone to pass through a speed camera where doing 40+ just a few seconds before, so clearly have no care for the speed limit.
The few that where within the speed limit before they passed through normally slam on the anchors just as they hit the first white line of the camera, in some cases they slam on the anchors so quickly that thier -10mph speed difference can force you to have to take evasive action (normally slamming on your brakes) this sort of causes a consertina (spelling?) effect and you just have to hope the driver behind you reacts as quickly as you did or you are likeley to get a car up your backside.
EDIT: Also, allthough 30 may be the limit in an area not the requirement there are also unwritten minimum speed requirements within a speed limit. I say unwritten because it is different on every road, The driver is meant to use thier common sense to judge this and see if they are going too slow. For example if the police catch people doing the 20 through a 30 camera act they will likeley get pulled anyway and possibly face worse then a fine, especially if they have been caught before.
It is also worth noting that you will never pass your driving test if you dont try and maintain the speedlimit almost exactly or if traffic is moving slower than the speedlimit you have to at least keep up with them at whatever speed is safe.
You mean "making suitable progress"
I failed on that first time.... :(
SlackDad
09-07-2005, 10:38
It is also worth noting that you will never pass your driving test if you dont try and maintain the speedlimit almost exactly or if traffic is moving slower than the speedlimit you have to at least keep up with them at whatever speed is safe.
I don't think this is strictly true. In a test the emphasis is on not trying to maintain the speed limit at all but rather, say, travelling nearer to 30 than 20, bearing in mind prevailing road condiitons. The speed limits are meant to be a maximum based on conditions being right. There are many instances when this wouldn't be the case.
I don't see why. I'm quite capable of viewing the situation objectively whether I drive or not and you don't have to be a driver to know that speed limits are exactly that *limits*, not *requirements*.
There is a requirement to keep up the flow of traffic - for example you (generically speaking!) could be prosecuted if there was a a 30mph road where everyone else was going that fast and you were only doing 20 as soon as you joined it and stayed at that speed.
Cant stand people who think they own the road and will spend ten hours doing whatevever they like whilst ignoring all other road users.
Those that travel at 20mph to make sure thery are not breaking the speed limit are also complete fools.
What about the people who slow down as they approach a green light as traffic lights in case it changes to red??? They don't seem to know that it turns to amber for these situations!
ian@huth
09-07-2005, 11:17
Cant stand people who think they own the road and will spend ten hours doing whatevever they like whilst ignoring all other road users.
Those that travel at 20mph to make sure thery are not breaking the speed limit are also complete fools.There can be many reasons why drivers don't go at anything like the speed limit. Many years ago I was parked in a multi story car park in Bradford when my clutch cable snapped. Being rather short of cash at that time I decided to drive home which was about nine miles away. Have you ever tried to drive without your clutch and without being a danger to other road users? Not very easy and virtually impossible to stick near to the speed limit with all those traffic lights and roundabouts.
One of the hardest speed limits to adhere to was in Florida on the Gulf coast. The speed limit was 5mph over a very old wooden bridge which was surrounded by quite a lot of speed limit warning signs spelling out the consequences of going even 1mph over the limit. It's very hard to do when the cars speedo doesn't register anything below 10mph.
There can be many reasons why drivers don't go at anything like the speed limit. Many years ago I was parked in a multi story car park in Bradford when my clutch cable snapped. Being rather short of cash at that time I decided to drive home which was about nine miles away. Have you ever tried to drive without your clutch and without being a danger to other road users? Not very easy and virtually impossible to stick near to the speed limit with all those traffic lights and roundabouts.
Very good point - in those types of situations it may be helpful to have your hazard lights on and signal to traffic behind you to overtake, that way most people will realise there's a problem - well I would anyway :shrug:
There is a requirement to keep up the flow of traffic - for example you (generically speaking!) could be prosecuted if there was a a 30mph road where everyone else was going that fast and you were only doing 20 as soon as you joined it and stayed at that speed.
that is totaly true, during the big fuel protests taxi drivers on a slow drive were being done for causing an obstruction
And something that annoys me is people that think a Speed *LIMIT* is actually a *REQUIREMENT*!
The limit is the *maximum* speed you are allowed to travel at. It is not *obligatory* to travel at that speed.and your point is ?
That you should not get "annoyed" by people who drive *below* the speed limit like this bloke I'm quoting below...
What really annoys me (in 30 zones) is people who slow down to 20 when they see a speed camera - the limit is 30, not 20
If someone gets "annoyed" by someone who chooses to travel below the speed limit they really should learn to chill out or perhaps not drive at all since other cases have demonstrated that that annoyance could easily lead to impatience and unwise over-taking manoeuvres or even Road Rage attacks.
__________________
in some cases they slam on the anchors so quickly that thier -10mph speed difference can force you to have to take evasive action (normally slamming on your brakes) this sort of causes a consertina (spelling?) effect and you just have to hope the driver behind you reacts as quickly as you did or you are likeley to get a car up your backside.
If it is necessary for you or other drivers to "slam on your brakes" then you are travelling *too close*.
Also, allthough 30 may be the limit in an area not the requirement there are also unwritten minimum speed requirements within a speed limit. I say unwritten because it is different on every road, The driver is meant to use thier common sense to judge this and see if they are going too slow. For example if the police catch people doing the 20 through a 30 camera act they will likeley get pulled anyway and possibly face worse then a fine, especially if they have been caught before.
Would you care to back this claim up with anything?
I can't say I've ever seen headlines that say "Motorist charged with *not* breaking the speed limit!"
It is also worth noting that you will never pass your driving test if you dont try and maintain the speedlimit almost exactly or if traffic is moving slower than the speedlimit you have to at least keep up with them at whatever speed is safe.
The expression is "failing to make due progress" IIRC however I would be very surprised if you could show anything that backs up your statement that you will fail "if you dont try and maintain the speedlimit almost exactly".
Yes, of course you should not deliberately *obstruct* other traffic nor drive an an "un-confident" manner but that's not necessarily anything to do with speed *limits*.
You can also fail your driving test for doing under under the speed limit as they call it undo hesitancy and as such can imped the flow of the traffic
Also has any one else noticed that the really bad drivers seen to come out on mass at the weekend?
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 13:35
According to this site here:
http://www.2pass.co.uk/failure.htm
64,942 people failed their driving test in 2001/2002 for "Driving too slowly".
Chimaera
09-07-2005, 14:10
Well we've just driven behind some idiot in a new Jaguar - nice car and all that, shame they couldn't drive! They were overshooting every stop line by a car's length at every set of red traffic lights we encountered - then ignored them when they went to green. What with that and dithering about in the wrong lane at the roundabouts etc - I need a fag! :grind:
Shame I don't smoke, really...........:devsmoke:
robtufts
09-07-2005, 14:27
What about the people who slow down as they approach a green light as traffic lights in case it changes to red??? They don't seem to know that it turns to amber for these situations!
I do this occasionally, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and with many more cameras appearing to catch people who jump reds I would rather slow down 5mph than get a fine and points.
(The above for intersections and the like, not crossings, unless you see someone there!)
Raistlin
09-07-2005, 14:32
Provided you are travelling no faster than the prevailing speed limit, the time allowed as the light goes from green to amber and then on to red is sufficient to allow you to stop in a safe and controlled manner.
There should be no need to slow down "just in case".
I saw someone overtaking on the left the other day !!!
You do wonder if some people have actually read the highway code.
I do this occasionally, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and with many more cameras appearing to catch people who jump reds I would rather slow down 5mph than get a fine and points.
If the light is on amber, you won't get flashed by a camera, they're only there to catch people who jump red lights. IMO there is no reason at all to slow down at traffic lights in case they change unless you're well over the speed limit, in which case you'd deserve to be caught.
The most annoying drivers I come across are those who potter along on the open road at 30 to 35 mph then as soon as they get to a 30mph limit speed up to 40, dumb or what?
You can also fail your driving test for doing under under the speed limit as they call it undo hesitancy and as such can imped the flow of the traffic
Also has any one else noticed that the really bad drivers seen to come out on mass at the weekend?
Yes- but you have to drive safely. And legally which means:
- in a 30 drive <30
- in a 40 drive <40
(sure you get the point)
One has to make progress but there are several parts of NSL where it would be totally unsafe to drive at 60.
It's a MAXIMUM limit- you can drive under it but not over it, if road conditions dictate a slower speed the most important thing is to drive safely at a sensible speed not driving everywhere at the speed limit.
An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)
If someone gets "annoyed" by someone who chooses to travel below the speed limit they really should learn to chill out or perhaps not drive at all since other cases have demonstrated that that annoyance could easily lead to impatience and unwise over-taking manoeuvres or even Road Rage attacks.
Yeah, whatever. :dozey:
Driving too slow is something you can (and will) be pulled up for, as demonstrated above. If these people drove at 20 mph all the while then I could simply overtake them - but no, the idiots I refer to are those that drive at 30mph, and then slow down to 20mph at cameras, and then speed up again when they have passed them.
__________________
Yes- but you have to drive safely. And legally which means:
- in a 30 drive <30
- in a 40 drive <40
I think that should be <= , you may drive at the limit legally.
An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)Single lane motorways I would guess, but I don't know which they are.
I've moaned about this before and I'll do it again - the ones who wind me up all the time are the people who indicate right as they approach a roundabout when they intend to go straight on - what's that all about?
1.Yes- but you have to drive safely. And legally which means:
- in a 30 drive <30
- in a 40 drive <40
I think that should be <= , you may drive at the limit legally.
2.An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)Single lane motorways I would guess, but I don't know which they are.
1. well yeah... but then you get calibration errors which is why truvelos/gatsos are usually calibrated about 4 or so mph above the SL.
Unless there are those ****ing silly digital ones like they have on the nottm ring road (D2, partially grade separated, yet a 40 limit) and the A610 that time your path between them...dunno how they work in terms of leeway
2. did i not say they were S2 as you can drive legally at 70 on D2+/D2+M?
__________________
I've moaned about this before and I'll do it again - the ones who wind me up all the time are the people who indicate right as they approach a roundabout when they intend to go straight on - what's that all about?
i dunno, that must just happen in wales ;) but i can see how it can be annoying :(
what annoys me more is people who just don't signal. how TF are you expected to know where they're going?
Saw a bad driver today wich I am tempted to post on that site.
Just coming back from a hospital visit up the M53, I only have to travel 1 exit up the motorway. Just seconds after joining the motorway while still building up speed (at about 65) im overtaken at quite a high speed by a black corsa. I'll bet you allready know what im going to say it looked like dont you? Exhaust was so wide it actually appeared to be a crome gutter drainpipe, it was making this awful sound that sounded a lot like when kids Jam crushed cans in thier pushbike wheels (I believe it was from a badly done K&N), All the windows had tint asside from possibly the windshield. then all the usual Chav mobile type stuff, lowered suspension, 17" alloys, Lexus lights (wich may look good on a lexus but not on a corsa) and it was packed full of the drivers chav mates (5 - 6 including him, looked like one was sitting on anothers knee). Anyway thats enough describing his car, back to the story...
He overtook me at quite a high speed and the suddenly slammed on the brakes and at the same time pulled in infront of me without even indicating I had to brake quite harshly to slow down enough so as not to hit him but I didnt even get a bit of curtesey from him. By this time he had slowed to 50 in the outside lane so I decided I would overtake (I didnt like the looks of how he was swerving) As I started to overtake he took this as some type of attack and sped up accordingly to match my speed. My Car doesnt have a very high top end and it appeared he was in either a 1.6 or a modded 2.0 so I couldnt get past him without breaking the speed limit by quite a bit so I decided to drop behind him again in the outside lane and just take it easy to let him build up some distance infront. Well wouldnt you know he slowed down again, it was about this time that I noticed he seemed to be maintaining his distance from a police car some 200 yards ahead. My first thought was that his car was SORN or he was uninsured etc.
Anyway, by now I had covered 2 1/2 miles of my 3 mile mini journey and signaled to come off at the exit, I was going right on the roundabout so I stayed towards the right of the slip road when suddenly the black corsa swings right past me into the left lane, narrowly missing wiping us off the road (all without indicating).
At this point I noticed there was a bit of a queue in the left lane but none in the right so I finally managed to get infront of him only to have his earlier swerving explained to me (little sod was on a mobile phone, probably through the whole of his journey).
As with most roundabouts the traffic turning left or going straight on normally moves much quicker then traffic turning right and we both got onto the roundabout at the same time, it was at this point I realised he was making his way back onto the motorway in the direction he would have been heading if he had just stayed on the motorway (I really have no idea what the hell he was playing at, I dont think he did either).
And the moral of the story is... If you see a chavmobile, keep your distance, even if you are heading the opposite direction your still probably not safe from the shear stupidity.
Unless there are those ****ing silly digital ones like they have on the nottm ring road (D2, partially grade separated, yet a 40 limit) and the A610 that time your path between them...dunno how they work in terms of leewayDunno, I avoid them, or drive on the inside lane.
2. did i not say they were S2 as you can drive legally at 70 on D2+/D2+M?huh :confused: and in english ?
An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)
The speed limit on a single carriageway with an NSL sign IS 60 mph
Adi
An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)The speed limit on a single carriageway with an NSL sign IS 60 mph
Adi
I was thinking that myself. Judging by your name are you an instructor or something?
EDIT: Welcome to the site by the way ;)
I've moaned about this before and I'll do it again - the ones who wind me up all the time are the people who indicate right as they approach a roundabout when they intend to go straight on - what's that all about?
It's about them probably having not read the highway code since they passed their test:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/17.htm#160
ian@huth
10-07-2005, 10:13
If the light is on amber, you won't get flashed by a camera, they're only there to catch people who jump red lights. IMO there is no reason at all to slow down at traffic lights in case they change unless you're well over the speed limit, in which case you'd deserve to be caught.Most traffic lights on fast roads have traffic sensors that hold them on green if they sense a vehicle approaching at a speed that would make stopping dangerious.
Lord Nikon
10-07-2005, 14:06
My bone of contention is that speed cameras have no means to take current driving conditions into account. There are circumstances where driving AT the speed limit is more dangerous than speeding on the same road under other conditions.
I will explain this.
There is a long straight stretch of motorway near me with a 70mph standard limit on it. When the road is dry and the visibility is good it can be argued that due to the nature of the road, it would be safe to drive at 90+mph on it (I know this is speeding, I am just making a point here) and yet a few years ago, while driving to where I was working at the time, it was covered in snow and ice, and anything above 25mph was potentially lethal. The road hadn't been gritted and visibility was almost zero.
Under circumstance 1 above, if there were cameras on there, then someone driving at 90mph quite safely would have received speeding fines while placing no-one at risk. Under circumstance 2 someone driving at 50mph would be risking the lives of many people around themselves, as well as their own life, and not receive anything as they were below the limit. Cameras do not have any perspective on the circumstances or environmental conditions relating to the people passing at the time.
The worst drivers on the roads are by far the cyclists. They are the most vulnerable to other road users yet I see them daily, riding through red lights, swerving around without warning, overtaking slow moving traffic on the inside, cutting drivers up, yet when one gets hit it's invariably the motorists fault in the eyes of the law. They are the one group of road users who have no legal requirement to hold a license, receive training in the operation of the class of vehicle they are intending to use on the public highway, no requirement for them to know the highway code, no requirement for their vehicle to pass an annual safety check and no requirement for them to hold insurance. Yet they are the ones most at risk from their own actions and those of people around them. Lunacy.
In case you don't think the government is biased against car drivers, consider this. Truvelo and Specs cameras take photos of the front of the vehicle, Motorbikes have no front number plate. So how do you identify the vehicle in question then?
An aside: Name three roads where one can legally drive on a single carriageway, under NSL regulations, at 70 mph :)
The speed limit on a single carriageway with an NSL sign IS 60 mph
Adi
A single carriageway motorway is 70 though. (Have I given it away?)
__________________
Unless there are those ****ing silly digital ones like they have on the nottm ring road (D2, partially grade separated, yet a 40 limit) and the A610 that time your path between them...dunno how they work in terms of leewayDunno, I avoid them, or drive on the inside lane.
2. did i not say they were S2 as you can drive legally at 70 on D2+/D2+M?huh :confused: and in english ?
S2 = 2-lane single carriageway
D2 = 2-lane (in each direction) dual carriageway
D2M = 2 lane motorway...
__________________
Just coming back from a hospital visit up the M53, I only have to travel 1 exit up the motorway.
Is that the bit that used to be an unclassified road?
Tezcatlipoca
10-07-2005, 19:09
The worst drivers on the roads are by far the cyclists. They are the most vulnerable to other road users yet I see them daily, riding through red lights, swerving around without warning, overtaking slow moving traffic on the inside, cutting drivers up, yet when one gets hit it's invariably the motorists fault in the eyes of the law. They are the one group of road users who have no legal requirement to hold a license, receive training in the operation of the class of vehicle they are intending to use on the public highway, no requirement for them to know the highway code, no requirement for their vehicle to pass an annual safety check and no requirement for them to hold insurance. Yet they are the ones most at risk from their own actions and those of people around them. Lunacy.
Ah, cyclists. I can't stand them - and I'm not a motorist, just a pedestrian.
Cut people up on the pavement, jump red lights when you try to cross the road (cars obey red lights, WTF don't many cyclists?).... very annoying :mad:
Cambridge is full of lunatic cyclists, with no care for others.
I have my own bike and I stop for red lights, I do wonder how many cyclists attempt to sue people when they are the one who run a red light and got hurt.
Cyclists evidently don't think the HC applies to them... that ****es me off somewhat.
Cyclists evidently don't think the HC applies to them... that ****es me off somewhat.
Don't forget, that despite not paying any road tax to use the roads cyclists still think they own the road :mad: Regarding the highway code, there are three different versions as far as I know. One for motorists, one for motorbike riders and one for cyclists :erm:
Much as I may agree about cyclists, this thread is about drivers, can we keep to that please. :)
Chrysalis
10-07-2005, 22:52
Interesting topic I dont drive but have took driving lessons so here is my point of view.
(a) I was told driving too slow can be as bad as driving too fast, eg. if someone catches up with you following a corner they will have to suddenly break. It is also bad in that it creates traffic congestion and can make other drivers do risky overtakign manueovers eg. you drive at 50mph on a 60mph road someone overtakes you at 70mph during a small window of oppurtunity.
(b) Traffic lights, when I am a passenger in a car I find it annoying when the driver slows down on a green light, I think this is uneccessary but the right thing to do if the driver is nervous if the light changed at the last moment whilst they at normal speed. Sometimes I see the opposite drivers speeding up so they are less likely to need to slow down this is dangerous of course.
(c) Roundabouts, I notice often people in the wrong lanes, this is partily due to I think the amount of driving test fraud that exists where these people havent really passed a driving test.
(d) Speed on main trunk roads/motorways, I think if the area is clearance (no junctions and no pedestrians) and a straight road then speeding is ok and it has been pointed out other countries have much higher speed limit's on these class of roads with LOWER accident rates. It is quite clearly stupid to have speed cameras in areas that have no pedestrians.
(e) speed in towns, There is little excuse to speeding in town area's due to nature of traffic you are not going to gain much more then a few seconds yet you are creating a risk to pedestrians.
(b) Traffic lights, when I am a passenger in a car I find it annoying when the driver slows down on a green light, I think this is uneccessary but the right thing to do if the driver is nervous if the light changed at the last moment whilst they at normal speed. Sometimes I see the opposite drivers speeding up so they are less likely to need to slow down this is dangerous of course.
I disagree.
There's always the chance the lights can change and if they do, you should be able to stop.
I won't slow down (ie brake) but I'll usually come off the gas and prepare to slow down by covering the brake in case the lights do change.
Of course, one doesn't want to approach the lights so quickly that if they do change then one is unable to stop.... that's plain dangerous :)
So it's always a good idea to think... if the lights are changing... can i stop... which is a good reason to maybe slow down... :)
Lord Nikon
10-07-2005, 23:44
Much as I may agree about cyclists, this thread is about drivers, can we keep to that please. :)
My post is also about drivers. Sometimes motorists can be blamed for injuring cyclists when it's the cyclist who for some reason believes he / she is impregnable while riding 15kg of aluminium & steel on 1/4" wide tyres next to someone in 3/4+ tonnes of steel. There are times when it isn't the motorist to blame but they still get the blame because of the actions of others.
If you want a comment purely about motorists then no problem... The current license is stupid, you pass your test at 17 or 18, then that is it until you hit 70, no requirement to show you are up to date with road signs, no requirement to prove you can still SEE well enough to drive, nothing. Eyesight, reaction times etc can deteriorate a LOT in 52 years, and traffic laws etc can change. It's time the law regarding licensing changed to reflect this.
If you want a comment purely about motorists then no problem... The current license is stupid, you pass your test at 17 or 18, then that is it until you hit 70, no requirement to show you are up to date with road signs, no requirement to prove you can still SEE well enough to drive, nothing. Eyesight, reaction times etc can deteriorate a LOT in 52 years, and traffic laws etc can change. It's time the law regarding licensing changed to reflect this.
Of course and I am firmly of the opinion that they should back-test theory for those drivers who haven't already had to pass one.
For experienced drivers it should be second nature and would make them aware of the latest rules which would surely make the roads safer.
I'm also in favour of regular refresher tests on the theory...
As for the medical things then it's a fair point but surely that would be related to insurance rather than actually passing the test. It's wrong though- I would say most older (40+) drivers if they were gonna retest would probably fail...
Lord Nikon
11-07-2005, 00:02
Of course and I am firmly of the opinion that they should back-test theory for those drivers who haven't already had to pass one.
For experienced drivers it should be second nature and would make them aware of the latest rules which would surely make the roads safer.
I'm also in favour of regular refresher tests on the theory...
As for the medical things then it's a fair point but surely that would be related to insurance rather than actually passing the test. It's wrong though- I would say most older (40+) drivers if they were gonna retest would probably fail...
Not talking about full retests, merely a requirement for motorists to keep up to date on some of the road signs. I remember a survey taken a few years ago that identified something like 60% of over 50 drivers (age) weren't aware of current national speed limits, or even what the national speed limit signs were, others weren't aware of other major road signs.
(c) Roundabouts, I notice often people in the wrong lanes, this is partily due to I think the amount of driving test fraud that exists where these people havent really passed a driving test.
And partly due to stupidly designed roundabouts that seem to be croping up everywhere these days.. take a single lane roundabout, stick some traffic lights on it and widen the roundabout *slightly* - just about enough for two lanes of traffic, but mark it out for three, then put some pedestrian crossings right on the exit of the roundabout so that if anyone decides to cross using the crossing the traffic backs up onto the roundabout and blocks every exit, but don't link the traffic lights to the crossing so people still try and squeeze onto the roundabout blocking even more traffic until the lights have been through a couple of full cycles to get things moving again.
And it gets even more fun if there's an HGV that needs more than one lane to get around....
:rolleyes:
ian@huth
11-07-2005, 00:25
Not talking about full retests, merely a requirement for motorists to keep up to date on some of the road signs. I remember a survey taken a few years ago that identified something like 60% of over 50 drivers (age) weren't aware of current national speed limits, or even what the national speed limit signs were, others weren't aware of other major road signs.Something like an annual MOT test for drivers? Eyesight test and short theory test.
Lord Nikon
11-07-2005, 00:28
Something like an annual MOT test for drivers? Eyesight test and short theory test.
Essentially, but even every 4 years would be fine.
I know of at least 2 drivers who only realised they needed eye tests when they almost hit parked vehicles on an open road, both were diagnosed with cataracts, and one of them was an LGV Night Driver.
Of course and I am firmly of the opinion that they should back-test theory for those drivers who haven't already had to pass one.
For experienced drivers it should be second nature and would make them aware of the latest rules which would surely make the roads safer.
I'm also in favour of regular refresher tests on the theory...
As for the medical things then it's a fair point but surely that would be related to insurance rather than actually passing the test. It's wrong though- I would say most older (40+) drivers if they were gonna retest would probably fail...
That's somewhat arrogant and ageist. Why should drivers that have passed practical tests have to do some laughable multiple choice thing that basically weeds out the ones that should not move on to do the practical? Thats why it was introduced.
Of course it's second nature. Rules have not changed - they just swapped Coppers for speed cameras.
If they bought in an MOT for drivers as well as vehicles annually, roads would not be congested because a large chunk would fail. It would not be the over 40/50's neccessarily either.
I just had a medical to continue driving PCV's (not that I do - but I can) and I just passed an ADI in a car because the last time I did it was in a coach. I have one for a motorcycle but both of those are 25 years ago.
If they bought in an MOT for drivers as well as vehicles annually, roads would not be congested because a large chunk would fail. It would not be the over 40/50's neccessarily either.
Wouldn't that be the point of it? Roads would not only be less congested, they'd be safer too.
Driving centres cannot cope with the tests they have to do now, without another few million each year. More red, tape - and who is going to pay for it all ? Daft idea.
Driving centres cannot cope with the tests they have to do now, without another few million each year. More red, tape - and who is going to pay for it all ? Daft idea.
Self acessment comes to mind with a large fee for licence renewal.
lets keep it quiet or the powers that be will catch on :disturbd:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.