[Closed] 62 points and still on the road

I bet you guys are a hoot to ride and/or drink with.

😀 as long as nobody mentions speeding, or politics or coffee, whether or not it's okay to burn wood, or what type of tyres, or posting poo through letterboxes I reckon it would be okay

Edit - and don't mention religion either

Someone mentioned the war in another thread but I think they got away with it.....

How can you misjudge what is invisible?

How can I hit what is invisible?

How can you misjudge what is invisible?
How can I hit what is invisible?

It's taking a philosophical turn in here.

How can I hit what is invisible?

[quote=Cougar ]How can I hit what is invisible?

Indeed, which is why it's perfectly safe to ignore double white lines as long as you can't see anything coming the other way.

Sure, that's exactly what I meant.

If I was overtaking something I'd do it where I believed it was safe to do so. Crossing solid white lines clearly isn't such a case.

The situation posed was going for an overtake and then an oncoming vehicle appearing in view going faster than expected. In which case, as I said, I'd abort the manoeuvre.

Contrary to popular belief, hazards don't "come out of nowhere," ever. Bikes do not teleport into your path, cars are not invisible.

The reason there is so much focus on speed..

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

Hoist that concept on board & you'll begin to understand why the emphasis!

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

Of course. I'd just rather they focused on the most effective way rather than solely on the easiest.

The situation posed was going for an overtake and then an oncoming vehicle appearing in view going faster than expected. In which case, as I said, I'd abort the manoeuvre.

That could cause all sorts of havoc. Especially if the thing you are overtaking also brakes because he sees the imminent collision.

Anyway - what about the other scenario? Or are you asserting that speed never causes an accident? My general principle is that by going fast, you are behaving unexpectedly in a way that introduces greater risk.

I'd just rather they focused on the most effective way

And that is?

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

The reason there is so much focus on speed..

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

What is actual the reduction and improvement based directly on speed ?

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

What is actual the reduction and improvement based directly on speed ?

I couldnt tell you - all I know is its the most cost effective way of improving road safety.

There are other ways but are they as cost-effective?

After all, cash is king.....rightly or wrongly!

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit. It's not difficult, if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path or safely negotiate a bend you are going too fast.

Everything else is semantics.

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit. It's not difficult, if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path or safely negotiate a bend you are going too fast.

which model of human is driving said corsa or porsche

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit.

You what?

Are we assuming they're implimenting road safety policies based on unlimited budgets, or policies which are the cheapest and easiest to get through due to limited budgets?

Well given that they have a limited budget, and will always have a limited budget, I imagine that's what's being discussed. This being the real world and everything.

if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path .... you are going too fast

Which particular part of my path is the stationary object going to be appearing in ?

Half a mile away. No worries. 155mph.
Six foot away.... could be an issue at more than 1mph.

I think your simple explanation may need some tweaking.

Well given that they have a limited budget, and will always have a limited budget, I imagine that's what's being discussed. This being the real world and everything.

So they're not actually the best positioned to determine road safety policies, as you claimed, due to budgetary constraints

Not sure how you arrived at that.

This is no longer productive.

Keep your ****ing speed down and watch what the **** you're doing. End of thread.

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

I have no appetite for the minutiae. There's a general point somewhere that you don't seem to care about in favour of nit picking.

Speeders like to speed, which is fair enough. It's great fun. But because a lot of people are shit at driving, there are speed limits. Rules that apply to everyone.

It's that simple. Suck it up. There's no point going on about other kinds of bad driving - no-one's excusing any of that or suggesting it's not important.

Anything else in this argument is *irrelevant*.

😆

Just pushing this to test the theory behind it and your assumption that Cougar has less money than plod.

That wouldn't be difficult. Lend me a tenner?

because a lot of people are shit at driving, there are speed limits.

Pretty much the point I've been making TBH.

Surely the solution here is "make people less shit"? If you're shit at driving, the solution isn't speed limits, the solution is to learn or to not be allowed drive.

That wouldn't be difficult. Lend me a tenner?

If you're shit at driving, the solution isn't speed limits

Speed limits AND better training.

We will always need limits. People will always think they are better than they are, but more importantly we need consistent behaviour on the roads.

No. Better training AND speed limits.

I'm not arguing against limits for the reasons you suggest, I'm arguing that the priorities are arse-backwards.

Better training won't stop dicks being dicks. And it's dicks that have and cause the most accidents.

I mean a stationary object at the limit of your line of sight. Obviously. But why engage brain when the usual sarcy comments can be rolled out.

This has been said numerous times but is always pissed on. It's the whole driving to the conditions point - it might me safe to do a ton over Rannoch Moor on a dry day with full visibility but forty round a sharp bend further up is way too fast. You could find cyclists or a broken down car on the road. But hey, you weren't "speeding" when you hit them.

Molgrips- same people who will get dogmatic rather than look at something dispassionately.

I mean a stationary object at the limit of your line of sight. Obviously. But why engage brain when the usual sarcy comments can be rolled out.

It was a genuine response to your simplified explanation.
There is No point making something "simple" if it's completely ambiguous.
But feel free to criticise someone pointing for out your errors.
Be aggressive and dismissive too if it makes you feel better.

mrlebowski - Member

The reason there is so much focus on speed..

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

What bollocks! 😯
Speeding counts as primary causal factor in 4% of KSIs, so you're not addressing the cause of 96% of serious accidents.

Putting a plaster on a scratch on your forearm will do **** all good when you're bleeding out of your femoral. 💡

There is a straight line of decay of KSIs over the years, and increasing speed enforcement has had no effect on that straight line.

How exactly did you form your opinion? It's not one that can be concluded from the facts.

You have to accept there will be accidents when people are driving cars as people don't concentrate when driving, drive too close behind each other, take silly risks etc,.

Passing the driving test takes training and everyone has done that and if every drove exactly as they did on their test there would be far fewer accidents. But they don't.

Passing the driving test takes training and everyone has done that and if every drove exactly as they did on their test there would be far fewer accidents. But they don't.

As brought up in most other threads on this subject, I believe mandatory re-tests or refresher courses would be the place to start for improving driving.

Serious negligent behavior that results in death should come with a lifetime ban. Minor infractions could fall under points / fine. The more serious, but not fatal incidents should result in a re-test with stricter parameters for passing.

On top of this, five yearly mandatory refresher courses for driving and skill improvement would be implemented. It's all moon on a stick, but would be better than the current situation. All in my opinion of course.

What bollocks

Charming...kiss your mother with that mouth?

It was what I was told on my speed awareness course - yes, I've been knicked for speeding & far be it for me to argue with someone whose job it is to retrain drivers..

You, on the other hand...?

& I think you've missed the point of what I said.

That being it's the most cost-effective way of improving road safety.

The most effective? I wouldn't know..

There is a straight line of decay of KSIs over the years, and increasing speed enforcement has had no effect on that straight line.

Might that have something to with cars being safer?
Any proof that there is a direct link proving that speed enforcement has little or no effect on road safety?

As brought up in most other threads on this subject, I believe mandatory re-tests or refresher courses would be the place to start for improving driving.

Agree but how often would they have to be. How quickly do people start to drive badly after passing their test as would need to be at least at that interval. Monthly re-tests!

Neal, sorry, genuinely thought you were being facetious.

Agree but how often would they have to be. How quickly do people start to drive badly after passing their test as would need to be at least at that interval. Monthly re-tests!

I'd go for after two years for new drivers and then every five. Not ideal, but at least it would be proactive and maybe convince people to stick to a higher standard knowing that they have to, at some point, prove to an examiner they are still capable of driving. Perhaps make it random to keep people on their guard.

My wife used to be an instructor and do advanced driving courses too. She says one of the most infuriating things was trying to instill situational awareness in teenagers. She'd spend time explaining why regular mirror checks, looking ahead, planning ahead and being extra cautious in residential areas are paramount. Only for the kids to arrive at the next lesson spouting "my dad says not to worry about other cars, nothing wrong with speeding to make progress" etc

How do you tackle that? When kids are learning selfish, idiotic behavior at home.

[i]When you want to overtake a slow moving vehicle on a single carriageway road, you see a gap, you think ok that's enough space, and you go. If someone comes screaming around the corner at 100mph, suddenly you have far less space than if someone came at 60.[/I]

I taught my sons to always consider that when thinking of overtaking, is there enough space for them to do it safely if [b]I[/b] was coming the other way.

The most dangerous part of the road, is the other side.

Mol
The Police's only role is to enforce the rules, Parliament makes them and councils/departments implement them.

[i]I'd go for after two years for new drivers and then every five. Not ideal, but at least it would be proactive and maybe convince people to stick to a higher standard knowing that they have to, at some point, prove to an examiner they are still capable of driving. Perhaps make it random to keep people on their guard. [/I]

We've done this previously. It's a 4 month wait around here for a test, and somehow you're going to increase capacity 30-40 times?

Approximately 1m people take the driving test pa and we've 45m drivers (own a licence).

Also interesting that 50k were banned (in a year), so 1%pa.

Can't believe the people pushing for retests. Do you want the cost and ball-ache of doing that? I don't. Maybe for pensioners.

From the moment you pass your test you [i]should[/i] get better at driving. If you're getting worse then either the test/training was too short/easy or you're a moron.

I also don't believe that speed is the be-all and end-all. I think it's generally about people being stupid. I've met so many otherwise book-smart people who genuinely believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, will drive whilst texting etc. There's something wrong with the training.

I guess what I'm saying is that retests would likely be just a nice little earner. Like the education system that churns out straight-A students with the common-sense and creativity of cannon balls - people will just pay the fee and pass the retest. They won't actually learn anything.

Can't believe the people pushing for retests. Do you want the cost and ball-ache of doing that? I don't. Maybe for pensioners.

There are many thing I don't want the "ball-ache" of but making roads safer is hardly what many of us term a "ball-ache"....

I guess what I'm saying is that retests would likely be just a nice little earner. Like the education system that churns out straight-A students with the common-sense and creativity of cannon balls - people will just pay the fee and pass the retest. They won't actually learn anything.

Why would they not be safer drivers?
Why would they not learn something?

How about a re-test every day at 6am then? For safety like.

How about a re-test every day at 6am then? For safety like.

Your facetiousness just undermines your point & strengthens mine.

Thanks!

As I said, moon on a stick. I definitely think the test should be more difficult and more involved. When my missus was teaching she had several conversations at various seminars regarding how lessons and testing need a massive shake up and fundamental changes. Some of the thinking applied to a different era.

As for being a ball ache having to pay out and partake in re-tests / refreshers, that'd be part of the point. Yes it would be a ball ache, but that might help hammer home
the importance of good driving.

How about a re-test every day at 6am then? For safety like.

🙄