Forum menu
I am arguing that a significant minority of all drivers are dangerous due to recklessness , speeding and impatience.
Target these and you would save many more lives.
1. Its not an either/or.
2. A FAI/Inquest can only answer questions about how to prevent the same/similar circumstances recurring. If the SoS wants to overhaul licensing and enforcement they can proactively do that anytime, but given they probably won't it will need Sheriffs and Coroners to push them to do something in very specific areas to fix very specific circumstances.
3. Some of the people who drive like that say things like "I'm much safer than old Dorris across the road, if she's allowed to drive why cant I".
Apologies for my English centric lack of knowledge but is an FAI the same as a coroners inquest?
Edit - ignore me, Google shows they are specific and not usually used for the majority of RTC deaths.
I am arguing that a significant minority of all drivers are dangerous due to recklessness , speeding and impatience.
And I'm arguing, that the risk posed by some people at either end of that curve is 4x higher than that.
Is there a threshold for the number of speed cameras you think there needs to be before it's reasonable to call for a better driving test system?
Target these and you would save many more lives.
Target any cause of accidents and you could do the same thing. It's pretty much the definition of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I agree that just because this might make a massive dent in the 160+ KSI per 10^9 miles doesn't preclude doing something about the 40KSI per 10^9 miles. Because there's two ways to look at that, either the elderly are involved in the same levels of drink, drugs, swiping tinder, and road racing as everyone else, or there are different issues that need different solutions.
Last time I drove on the no overtaking section of the A515 no overtaking section at the speed limit I got over taken by a Range Rover. They could not tell if the road was clear.
Anecdotes prove nothing.
Satire?
Just make dashcams compulsory and have random driving checks on the footage.
So of the car centric on here who need 600bhp cars might learn something .
Apologies for my English centric lack of knowledge but is an FAI the same as a coroners inquest?
No need to apologise - I doubt most Scots can tell you either!
They serve a similar sort of purpose, but we don't routinely have Coroners inquests in Scotland (there are no Coroners!). All deaths in Scotland are reviewed by the Procurator Fiscal (COPFS). They decided if it needs further investigation, if a Port Mortem is needed, and if a Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) is warranted. Most FAIs are actually held because the law says they must not because there is actually anything significant to learn. All deaths in custody (police or prison), and any workplace deaths automatically get FAI's. Most ordinary accidents don't. Most road traffic collisions don't. So for a FAI to be held for a RTC, someone at COPFS needs to think there is an important issue about the death that is not clear or lesson that can be learned from it. Interestingly this case had the Crown represented twice by two opposing view points - the COPFS representing essentially the Scottish state (arguing for change), and the Advocate General representing basically Whitehall (arguing for a status quo).
Because we don't have Coroners, and they are far less common they are presided over by Sheriffs (who on other days will be doing Civil or Criminal cases - so not dealing with death every day). Sheriffs are a similar level of Judge to a County Court Judge. I don't know which system is better. However both have the power to make recommendations to prevent repeats - I don't know if Whitehall listen to either of them.
Interesting then, I think all English road deaths go to a coroner, who can make recommendations to try and avoid a repeat.
My mum says she is willing to move but has imposed such a list of criteria that essentially it will be impossible to find somewhere. I hope that when the time comes I will be more pragmatic, but i’m not betting on it.
Likewise - this is almost another thread really, After my Dad died we started encouraging my mum to look for somewhere a) smaller, with much less garden b)in a village where she could walk to the shops. But it became evident over the next year when she'd not managed to look at a single property (or deal with any of the admin of my dads' death) that she also had dementia and was some way beyond being able to deal with decision making, let alone a move.
The in laws were sounding really positive - they live way down a singletrack lane in Herefordshire and were making noises about moving to Malvern or Ledbury. But a few years on and nothing had happened and it's becoming an issue and it's clearly too late.
I already live in a city with everything in walking distance (and I'm not going to change that) but I think you need to move into your 'final home' much earlier than most people think. You need to do it when you've got the energy to make it yours and do any work to it. If you wait until you actually *need* to move it's too late for that. So *personally* I think you need to be moving to somewhere you can live comfortably without a car, and with reduced personal mobility not much later than 70. 75 at the latest.
Hopefully we'll all being going strong much longer than that. But you don't know until it hits and then it's too late.
Just make dashcams compulsory and have random driving checks on the footage.
That seems like considerably more work than just having annual / every 5 years retests once you're over 60 (or whatever age you set) and it would only show the aftermath of any incident.
Regular retests would prevent the dangerous / incompetent / medically impaired driver from getting behind the wheel and causing the chaos on the first place.
I think you need to move into your ‘final home’ much earlier than most people think
very much this. I’m aware of the ticking clock and I’m 55, in a house that I certainly don’t want to grow old in. Of course not having children to bale me out focusses the mind somewhat. FiL just sailed blithely on oblivious to the problems he was dumping on us (mostly my wife), my parents slightly better but still a level of denial.
Regular retests would prevent the dangerous / incompetent / medically impaired driver from getting behind the wheel and causing the chaos on the first place.
Some of the evidence at the FAI wasn't convinced that such a retest would actually spot someone who was losing the plot, whereas a short cognitive assessment may. Thats a little odd, and counter intuitive but i guess if you test on driving ability alone then so long as someone doesn't make mistakes you pass them but the scenario that might force a mistake may not arise during the test. Many medical impairments would not show on a test because they are variable - on a good day you may be fine.
I'm sure Specsavers etc would happily encourage DVLA to require eye tests every 2 yrs for glasses wearers and 5 yrs for those who don't and could easily handle some extra test like a reaction time test etc. It could all be very simple - turn up with your driving license and the optician records the outcome immediately.
I suspect the problem with a "retest" is more complex- what do you do with someone that fails? Is their license revoked immediately? Can they retake the test again ASAP? For all the many people who argue that retests should be mandatory (here or elsewhere) - very few of them ever voluntarily go and have someone review their driving. My wife does for work and she says its quite interesting watching her colleagues both getting anxious going to and then their perceptions coming back from their assessments - but there is no actual impact there just some "coaching" on how to be a better driver. Some take it on the chin and say fair comment, some shrug it off, and some believe the instructor is a "jumped up traffic warden nazi who obviously was just too short and fat to get in the police" (direct quote!).
“fussing over” the preventable circumstances that lead to the death of a toddler on the pavement is quite an interesting characterisation
I am arguing that a significant minority of all drivers are dangerous due to recklessness , speeding and impatience.
Target these and you would save many more lives.
The argument that "bad things aren't important because there are other bad things" should have a Law or a Razor or a Your Logical Fallacy Is or something attached to it. It crops up on here semi-regularly, it's the forum equivalent of "why aren't you out there catching real criminals?
I got into a debate recently with an older driver who was adamant that the A road out of town was a 40mph limit throughout. She was convinced that there were signs painted on the roadway advising that there was a 40mph limit and that as there was no NSL signpost after then it applied all the way to the next town.
There are no 40mph signs. There are huge SLOW markings on the entry to bends.
So it's 60 then?
10 deaths on the roads vs. 5000 for all reasons, but the figures also show that the elderly are only involved in a small proportion of those 10. We’re looking at tiny numbers.
Isn't this self-fulfilling? The incidence of accidents in the over-120s is zero.
The argument that “bad things aren’t important because there are other bad things” should have a Law or a Razor or a Your Logical Fallacy Is or something attached to it. It crops up on here semi-regularly, it’s the forum equivalent of “why aren’t you out there catching real criminals?
Whataboutism, no?
So the proposal is that you are going to retest all people with a driving license every five years?
There are allegedly 50 million people with a driving license that's 10 million retests every year.
The lower estimate for driving license holders is about 33 million. Thats 6.6 million retests.
That's doable?
I see we’ve moved onto ‘improving this isn’t instantly straightforward so let’s not bother’.
There are about 1.6 million tests anually and its hard get a test slot.
It's not a instant fix to produce another 5 to 8.4 million tests anually.
Its common sense not anything else?
It’s not a instant fix to produce another 5 to 8.4 million tests anually.
Its common sense not anything else?
Which is why the recommendation was to focus it onto a relatively small number of people at a point in their life where their risk profile starts to increase.
It's almost like the sheriff at the FAI did some thinking about it.
And if I have my contacts in. . . ? I can see the requirements for traffic policing requiring certifying on opthalmic equipment to be competent at the their jobs (or a lot of trips in police cars back to an eye-testing station. (To be clear I am not against a requirment for corrective vision aids to be stated on the licence but the detail will be difficult for the underfunded/manned enforcement authority).
Eyesight and medical problems aren't an area of police expertise. BITD we could carry out a test in good daylight on a British Standard number plate at a distance appropriate to the letter height. We couldn't run that test in the dark, for example, it was that simple.
Police can make reports to the DVLA Medical Branch for further enquiries, as can GPs. GPs can make the referral without their patient's permission if serious harm to anyone is an over-riding concern
That’s doable?
Tomorrow? Of course not. Eventually? We (as a species) went from Project Mercury to walking on the moon inside of ten years. The first manned flight was 190something, 60 years ago. Yet training people to be driving evaluators isn't doable?
The only reason the infrastructure isn't there is because it doesn't need to be, there's no call for it. A six week waiting list for a test is perfectly fine because it's not like it'll come to people as a surprise. You don't scale for extraordinary load. We didn't have people providing Speed Awareness Courses, until we did.
“jumped up traffic warden nazi who obviously was just too short and fat to get in the police” (direct quote!).
That's well into FAFO territory and the speaker is all ready demonstrating the wrong attitude to driving and should maybe take a rest from such a stressfull activity.
And if I have my contacts in. . . ?
the conversation at the roadside goes something like this:
cop: your license says you need glasses
driver: yeah I’m wearing contacts
cop: can you read the numberplate on the [red fiesta]
driver: [AB12CDE]
and assuming it’s correct then nothing further happens BUT if it goes
cop: your license says you need glasses
driver: yeah I forgot them
then you find yourself in bother
My in-laws moved to a more rural location after retiring, ten miles in any direction to reach a town and more than triple that to the hospital. They will not move, and get quite annoyed when asked about moving closer to a town. Yet they moan about the fuel oil prices, the shared waste water pump, the state of the roads, the terrible state of driving, too many agricultural vehicles on the road, getting snowed in, etc, etc. All the negatives of living in the country yet they chose to live there and it's only getting harder for them to maintain the big garden and are needing more frequent visits to the hospital.
They're stubborn and it will be us that will be making weekly 150 mile round trips, as well as one day having to take their car keys off them. But they're not alone, in the tiny village they live in, most folks are retired.
I can only see this as a growing issue.
That’s well into FAFO territory and the speaker is all ready demonstrating the wrong attitude to driving and should maybe take a rest from such a stressfull activity.
if he worked for my wife he wouldn’t be there - this is already quite far down the list of things he’s done wrong. His own boss just laughs it off and says “you know what he’s like”. But the point was that as we all know people don’t take kindly to having their driving criticised - lots of voices lobbying for retests but few actually voluntarily lining up to have someone critique them every few years.
So the proposal is that you are going to retest all people with a driving license every five years?
There are allegedly 50 million people with a driving license that’s 10 million retests every year.
The lower estimate for driving license holders is about 33 million. Thats 6.6 million retests.
That’s doable?
41m licence holders.
6m of them over 70.
Given that over-70's need to apply for their licence renewal online (self-certifying) every 3 years anyway, surely it's not too much to add a reactions test, a quick Highway Code test into there as well? It's not 10m retests, it'd be 6m but spread over 3 years so 2m a year which is exactly what the licence renewal system is at the moment anyway.
Fail the online test, get referred to an actual person to double check it and do a physical driving test.
Hell, if I have to take a reactions test every time I hire a Lime bike at 10pm, I'm fairly sure an online renewals process can add a short questionnaire into the system.
Plus it'd be phased in anyway, it's not like 2m people would all turn up at the test centre on day 1!
“jumped up traffic warden nazi who obviously was just too short and fat to get in the police” (direct quote!).
That's not dissimilar to the people who go on Speed Awareness Courses (and yes, I have done one, I got done at 34 in a 30 zone, accelerating too fast out of the village onto the NSL road, a camera van at the far end caught me going from the 30 zone into the NSL zone at 34, there was no arguing about it, it was purely my fault).
Probably 2/3rds the people on the course were on at least their 2nd one. They regarded it as a bit of a ballache, something to sit through. The remaining 1/3rd (inc me) were on their first. Some (inc me) took it as it was intended and actually the guys running it were pretty decent. Some (a couple) made it their mission to be as obnoxious, disruptive and ****ty as possible. Smart arse comments, petty whataboutery and then, right at the very end, just as everyone was getting ready to go home, the instructor said "any questions or comments?" and one guy went off on one and you could hear the whole room just sigh and go "FFS, we were literally about to leave and now look what you've done!"
The standard of driving in the UK is generally fairly shit. (Less shit than most countries in the world, but still shit in absolute terms. You'd never let someone fly a plane with the same level of ineptitude, yet a Cesna 182 and a typical modern near-2-tonne-wagon have the same killing ability, and the car goes a shed load faster, and much closer to people.
How many are totally clueless when the wheel start locking up or the car starts sliding ? Total liabilities in rain or snow.
It needs to be a privilege not a god given right to drive a killing machine on public roads.
Retest every 3 years. Significantly up the standard to pass. Force further testing for motorway use (how many ****s don't even know not to sit in the middle lane, or to use the hard shoulder to accelerate before rejoining the main carriageway? Etc etc.)
Just gear up to do so. It's not ****en rocket science, just the daily Hate Mail won't like it.
The benefit is the roads will have fewer bad drivers, it'll be better for cycling, and those who are crap will have to use public transport, which will have to be sorted when enough voters start getting angry about how bad it is allowed to be by successive Governments.
yet a Cesna 182 and a typical modern near-2-tonne-wagon have the same killing ability, and the car goes a shed load faster,
?? My car definitely doesn’t go faster than a Cesna.
I suspect the rest of your ambitions to become the hardest country in the world to get or obtain a driving license are economically not going to work very well and so far from reality that the dvla and their masters will not even want to consider reviewing the issues the sheriff raises because it’s the thin end of the wedge towards your solution - which lets face it still wouldn’t eliminate all road casualties.
?? My car definitely doesn’t go faster than a Cesna.
Indeed. Not everyone on here drives 170mph+ supercars.
This driver surrendered their license when shown the video. Police didn't tell me how old they were but said they had just had a significant birthday. I have been around the block a few times with close passes etc but this really did shit me up. I honestly almost threw the bike in a hedge and walked home (long walk, at least 15km). Forward to about 1.25
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jnX1iKUxupQ&t=119s
They’re stubborn and it will be us that will be making weekly 150 mile round trips, as well as one day having to take their car keys off them. But they’re not alone, in the tiny village they live in, most folks are retired.
I can only see this as a growing issue.
We got stuck a bit earlier in the thread about the "rural" part of it, but the same thing's going to happen to anyone living in an out-of-town housing estate - in how many of them do you realistically need a car to get anywhere?
I already live in a city with everything in walking distance (and I’m not going to change that) but I think you need to move into your ‘final home’ much earlier than most people think. You need to do it when you’ve got the energy to make it yours and do any work to it. If you wait until you actually *need* to move it’s too late for that. So *personally* I think you need to be moving to somewhere you can live comfortably without a car, and with reduced personal mobility not much later than 70. 75 at the latest.
Already in consideration, we're late 50's but the reason is that we've seen both approaches from parents/in-laws.
My parents and my FIL both realised in their early 70's that they needed to put in place their future living, and did. Worked well.
My MIL wouldn't face it, ended up badly.
Our plan is to initial move out of the 'family' house into the separate ground floor house we renovated out of one of our barns (when Mum passes on) and then later into a bungalow/accessible flat in the nearby small town - they're not cheap but we've a valuable property to sell. If one of the kids takes on the main house like we did we may just stay in the Annex where Mum is currently.
So it’s 60 then?
@cougar2 yeah, all the way. There are people who also claim to not drive over 40mph on that road because it's "terrifying". A760 Largs to Kilbirnie FWIW.
@poly Missed most of yesterday due to travel but I have no problem with my driving being crtiqued but I have worked within a professional body that expects continual development and the habit stuck. Many don’t and may need to learn about continuous learning which will be a tough ask for the current driving cohort but new drivers will learn this during lessons.
yeah, all the way. There are people who also claim to not drive over 40mph on that road because it’s “terrifying”.
I understand driving at 40 in a 60 limit if 60 is inappropriate for the conditions, it's exactly what they should be doing. If it's ignorance, however...
On a speed awareness course I did forever ago, one of the elements was showing the group photos and asking what they thought the limit was. Unsigned, no-one had a clue. "Uh... 40? 50?"
I think this is why we got monospeeders. Even if you don't know the limit of unmarked roads, it's never 40 or 50 if it's unmarked (assuming a regular car).
Haven't read the whole thread, but:
I suggest mandatory dashcams for everyone, the type that also show the inside of the vehicle (blocked to show just the driver, not passengers).
The video will be sent remotely and viewed by AI, anything found will be flagged for a human to check properly. The constant AI monitoring will also catch people who don't have them or turn them off/sideways etc.
Privacy issues? You're driving in public. If you're concerned about people watching you, drive on private land only (where it will be legal to turn the cameras off).
The entitlement amongst boomers in general is quite something to behold. In this sense, wanting to keep driving 2 tonne SUVs at the risk of killing other people is entirely in keeping.
Lovely stereotyping and sweeping generalisation.
Privacy issues? You’re driving in public. If you’re concerned about people watching you, drive on private land only (where it will be legal to turn the cameras off).
Can I assume you're neither female nor someone that has good reason to be wary of being filmed at all times? Or just concerned about the privacy implications of such a system?
Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly object to on board recording but only if it only gets stored locally and viewed with a warrant and good reason. Your solution is dystopian at best and a stalkers wet dream at worst.
Lovely stereotyping and sweeping generalisation.
Where?
Lovely stereotyping and sweeping generalisation.
Well, my fourth and fifth words were 'in general' so, yeah.
<Shrugs>
Can I assume you’re neither female nor someone that has good reason to be wary of being filmed at all times? Or just concerned about the privacy implications of such a system?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly object to on board recording but only if it only gets stored locally and viewed with a warrant and good reason. Your solution is dystopian at best and a stalkers wet dream at worst.
It wasn't 100% serious 😉
As I laid it out it above it's clearly OTT and has major privacy issues, but I think the idea in general has some merit, for discussion if nothing else. For example it's only feasible if 100% locked from any human viewing the footage unless the (as reliable as possible) AI has flagged something. All footage could be local and processed by the onboard computer, only short clips sent remotely. Etc.
Never gonna happen, regardless!
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I have to be retrained/tested every 5 years to continue to use a powered access platform for working at height in my job. It stays on private land, doesn't do more than 10mph and is nowhere near the public (fenced site, locked gate at all times). Its also a piece of equipment I will use approximate 75% of my working year, yet to keep the license I have to do it. There is absolutely no excuse for not having a highway code/theory refresher and practical test every 5-10 years for all drivers. Its the only way, combined with more enforcement and tougher sanctions/less 'hardship' get outs, to improve the dire driving skills in this country. I drive a 2 tonne Transit and the number of idiots in smaller, lighter vehicles that cut me up/get to close/overtake at stupid times and they will come off much worse than I will if it goes wrong, proves it.
I drive a 2 tonne Transit and the number of idiots in smaller, lighter vehicles that cut me up/get to close/overtake at stupid times and they will come off much worse than I will if it goes wrong, proves it.
And why do you think they would drive any differently after doing a test every 10 years? Everyone will go out of their way to pass a test as they really, really want to be able to continue driving but thinking it will change their behaviour once passed it a bit optimistic.
They are driving like ****ers because they are ****ers, not because they don't know how they should be driving.
I don't know how often it needs to be said, it's been several times on this thread alone now, but there is no such thing as a "hardship get-out." Every loss of driving privileges is a hardship pretty much by definition, vanishingly few people will react to a licence suspension with "fantastic, just what I wanted!"
As lovely as it may sound and I'm sure few here will argue against retesting, full practical retests every five years simply isn't going to happen. Back when I passed my test in 1990 it was a six week waiting list and I doubt that's gone down in the intervening years. There's presumably more car drivers than access platform workers by several orders of magnitude. We don't have anywhere near the resource. It's easy to say "build it then" but how's that working out for the police, the courts, the jails, the hospitals...
What might work is some sort of staggered refresher. Back when I used to throw myself out of aeroplanes for fun, if you hadn't made a jump in [time] then you had to retrain. Passing the shortest threshold merited a couple of minutes with an instructor, then a stepped scale up to IIRC two years where you were then treated as though you were a complete noob and had do take the entire course again. We could do something similar with driving perhaps, a short initial test which if you fail qualifies you for mandatory retraining / a longer retest.
They are driving like * because they are *, not because they don’t know how they should be driving.
I don't think that's true. Or rather, I think it's true for a percentage of drivers, but there is a percentage who genuinely don't know any better. And probably a percentage also who are simply incompetent.
Take the Lane Two Owners' Club drivers. Why do we suppose they drive onto the motorway directly into the middle lane and stay there until swerving off at their exit? Some simply don't give a ****, I'm alright Jack, I'm doing almost the speed limit; some think it's what you're supposed to do (one of the mouth-breathers on the SAC said they thought it was the "cruising lane"); and some are abjectly terrified of changing lanes so do it precisely twice on every motorway journey.
You're absolutely right though that on a test the wilfully terrible will drive like there's a police car behind them and then go back to being bellends as soon as they're no longer being observed.
What might work is some sort of staggered refresher. Back when I used to throw myself out of aeroplanes for fun, if you hadn’t made a jump in [time] then you had to retrain. Passing the shortest threshold merited a couple of minutes with an instructor, then a stepped scale up to IIRC two years where you were then treated as though you were a complete noob and had do take the entire course again. We could do something similar with driving perhaps, a short initial test which if you fail qualifies you for mandatory retraining / a longer retest.
How would you track this? What about someone who's kept their licence valid but hasn't actually driven anything in 10 years, how do the DVLA/whoever know?