Forum menu
It's ludicrous that someone could scrape through a test in a 1 litre 50hp Micra Chevette in 1983 1975, and yet currently be driving a 3+ tonne 500 hp Chelsea Tractor capable of 260mph some 40+ years later with no checks in between.
My licence allows me to drive a vehicle up to 7.5 tonnes. I was driving two, three a day, five days a week, of all types up to my limit in my 60’s, eight or nine years ago.
I’d have no problem with having an eye test now, in my 70’s; my eyesight is now better than it has been for decades, thanks to having cataract surgery on both eyes a few years ago.
we are one of the safest countries in the world for road deaths (7= from top IIRC and none of the countries above us have massively different license regimes AFAIK). Getting a license today is harder than its ever been. Imagine if we just enforced the existing laws, how much better it could be without actually making everyone's life more complex/expensive.
Simply put, UK isn't the safest so we can do better. And even if we were 'top' we could do even better.
Mindsets need to change. Drink driving pre-80s was very much a tolerated thing. Massive government as campaigns had a huge impact on that. Yes, enforcement too. But education from an early age about driving being a privilege, not a right, would (I think) be a better way forward.
And yes, apply the rules more rigidly, drink, drugs, 12 points for a ban, people arriving in the UK with overseas licences - mandatory licence numbers when applying for motor insurance - retest at least theory every 5 years, graduated licences for new drivers, etc etc.
Oh, and put up duty on petrol. £1.40 a litre? It's been that level or thereabouts for a couple of decades. Use the duty to sort out road markings.
Edited to add, average petrol price in 2011 was £1.40 a litre. Inflation is roughly 58% to now, so petrol should be £2.21 per litre.
people arriving in the UK with overseas licences
I have a number of overseas colleagues and it depends where they're from. Some countries have mutual recognition (for a period at least, after which there needs to be a UK test), others do not. There is a widely abused need for vehicles in Scotland/England/Wales to be registered in the UK after 6 months (including from NI) but again this comes down to enforcement.
mandatory licence numbers when applying for motor insurance
Do they not ask for this already? A bigger problem remains the 1.2m unlicensed/uninsured drivers on UK roads, and again, this comes down to a lack of fear of getting caught.
Road Safety Strategy out today - will be interesting to see if it goes far enough on things like designing street layouts to be safer
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Most people do actually know how to drive as required by test conditions, they just don't care.
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Ok, let's play around with that idea. If you routinely test people, do standards go up, down or stay the same?
Further up in the thread there's a point about a private pilot who needs regular testing (on various aspects of their health and flying).
If that testing has zero impact on standards, then why carry it out at all?
I do get that people think they can improve the.quality of their actions for a test only, but from my experience in training and compliance I'd say that regular testing works. As it simply becomes easier to stay at a compliant standard than not.
If the magnitude of the consequences of failure is much bigger, then that (in my experience) impacts the quality of the routine. So, if you were a professional driver and could lose your job on a test failure, you'd probably be likely to maintain a higher quality of work.
Having worked at an insurer, I've seen how a lax approach to compliance meant widespread testing failure (under the old regulator). I've also seen how better/tighter training and monitoring improved that.within that company. There will always be those who 'wing it', but as standards improve they generally become fewer and less tolerated.
Qv drink driving...
If it was up to me I would reduce speed limits by 10 mph, except the 20 mph limits.
i would enforce the limit with un marked cameras and all traffic lights would have cameras on them.
You could use the revenue for walking, cycling provision and public transport.
The lack of enforcement remains one of the major issues with road safety. It'll be interesting to see how this is addressed in the Road Safety Strategy when this is announced, I think tomorrow.
Very much this. Mandatory eye tests every 3 years for over 70s is a tiny step in the right direction (would be better being ALL drivers IMO) but the lack of visible road policing must surely be a huge factor in road safety. If folk know there's next to zero chance of their dodgy driving shenanigans being caught, then they'll continue to do it.
I'm still a youngster but we thought ahead to old age when buying our current house. I appreciate not everyone has the luxury of this choice. Even with the current shite public transport (which will surely improve over the next decades) we could live without driving in older age. House on main road, bus stop within 60sec shuffle from the front door, direct buses to hospital. Shops, pharmacy, hairdressers, takeaways and pub within easy walking distance. Just wish my parents had thought about that when they moved to their current house in their late 60s - my dad can't walk for 5mins let alone the 20mins to the nearest bus route...
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
First Google result says bad eyesight caused six deaths last year. And how many of those would testing have prevented? Seems like the government is going after the minows while the sharks swim free.
The known risks are:
https://www.dsfire.gov.uk/safety/on-the-road/driving-safety
And yet you can still buy a car that will do three times the motorway speed limit. Cars need limiters.
You can still have a phone in the passenger compartment of a car. I don't care if your kids or passengers want to use them, they can watch the road or fall asleep like we used to. Likewise jam sat navs unles the car is stationary. Bizarrely my car won't let me connect Android auto if the car is moving but once connected lets me play with it till my heart's content.
Eyesight testing sure, but first ban 200mph cars and phones anywhere but in the boot.
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
Oh yes, most definitely, as is the vast majority of peoples driving. The day after I passed my test at 17 I was already driving in a way that would not pass a test.
Test me every 5 years by all means but you are a fool if you think I am going to be driving as if I were under test conditions for the next 5 years.
that is not required in the test (I don’t know if it ever was, but it doesn’t even seem to be how people are taught these days.)So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
but first ban 200mph cars and phones anywhere but in the boot.
How many deaths are caused by cars capable of 200 mph? How many of those were even significantly exceeding the limit at the time? As with many of the issues people identify it isn’t really tackling the problem.
phones in the boot would still connect to CarPlay so not sure what it achieves! My car play sat nav is voice activated so I can ask Siri to navigate me somewhere just as easily as it used to be to ask my wife to tell me where to turn.
using a satnav and following signposts to navigate without turn by turn instructions from the examiner are part of the test now - most people here will have sat a test before those changes.
the new drivers I encounter are pretty religious about not touching their phones (even if, because they are in lower spec cars their phone is in a holder as the sat nav) - it’s actually millennial and older drivers who seem to be worst at texting whilst driving IME, probably because getting caught once as a new driver would mean retaking both tests, whilst getting caught once as an old fart would be embarrassing but cost less than replacing the tyres.
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
And while we're at it limit acceleration to .2g
phones in the boot would still connect to CarPlay so not sure what it achieves!
It stops people texting with the phone on their lap like I see all too often when out on foot or on my bike.
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
I'm a quarter to three man.
The day after I passed my test at 17 I was already driving in a way that would not pass a test.
What were you doing? Speeding, jumping red lights...?
Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph.
What percentage of accidents are caused by accidents on motorways due to speeding (genuine question, i dont know)? I imagine it's far more dangerous to drive at 40 in a 20, than 100 on a motorway. To be clear I do either.
The other point is one of safety. I firmly believe a fast car, driven correctly is safer than a slower one. For the simple fact if you overtake you are on the wrong side of the road for less time. Similarly I'd hate to try to overtake, misjudge it, but my foot down to speed up and get out of trouble, only to find I can't.
Obviously fast cars in the hands of knobbers are not a good idea either.
But back on topic about eye sight checks for over 70s. I'm totally on board with it.
But id go further than that. There should be mandatory eye tests for every driver ever 5 years or so. It's not just old folks with crap eyesight, especially in the dark.
The eye tests that exist are a bit of a joke, my mother has had them for ages (glaucoma) and always passed just fine even though her eyesight was awful.
I say "was" because she just had her 2nd cataract done and she's good now!
Obviously fast cars in the hands of knobbers are not a good idea either.
And let's face it who buys fast cars? That's right, those who you refer to as "knobbers". When I stereotype car owners on an MTB forum it always goes badly because there are probably more "knobbers" with fast cars driving them too fast on an MTB forum than in the general population. And who gets banned on STW, the member calling out the outrageous bragging or the hog? to be fair this was pre-hack and there's a more responsible attitude on STW now. The "making progress" types are thinner on the ground now.
I suggest riding down some narrow lanes to an MTB event. MTBers tend to fall into two categories 1/ Berlingo or similar pootling along taking care around cyclists - the majority. 2/ flash pick up, 4x4, Audi, Beamer, overbiked bike on rack, impatient "skills" pressing on and taking risks around someone actually riding their MTB to the same event.
The very people who society would be better off not being in fast, flash, pedestrian unfriendly vehicles are exactly the "knobbers" who buy them. They don't buy a fast flashy car to drive carefully and courteously they buy a fast flashy car to drive fast and be flashy.
I'll give you there are exceptions but if you have any doubts drive along the 'bahn from Berlin to Munich on a Friday evening and then check my correlation: the bigger, faster and flasher the car the more chance there is a knobber taking stupid risks overtaking behind the wheel.
Limit all cars to 70 and you remove one attraction of big fast cars, and it would limit to how "knobbish" the "knobbers" can be.
You might want to rephrase this
What percentage of accidents are caused by accidents on motorways due to speeding (genuine question, i dont know)? I imagine it's far more dangerous to drive at 40 in a 20, than 100 on a motorway. To be clear I do either.
Audi
I have an A4 and I definitely don’t drive like that. But mine is relatively low powered and un-flash and there are a lot of total weapons about behind the wheels of S-series Audis.
That one on the M66 was horrific. The driver involved should never drive again when he gets out of the clink.
That's right, those who you refer to as "knobbers
In fairness I have 2 cars on my drive capable of over 150mph and I never drive either over 70! In fact I'm well known in my circle of friends for driving like a granddad! I like nice cars, but I don't like driving fast!
Limiting a car to 70mph won't stop someone driving like a tosser in a 30.
Double post was my fault this time, no glitches, wrong icon clicked to edit.
But a 70mph limiter will stop the kind of accident I linked. And as someone who has lived within ear shot of an urban race circuit used once a year it'll stop the worst excesses of urban mad driving. The road past our house is a 30kmh limited 400m straight on the GP circuit diversion route, you tell me what a Porsche GT4 driven by a knobber in a baseball cap will do having gone through a bend at maybe 60kmh and then flat out for 400m. We campaigned for 20years to get a Stop junction before the school, before that it was 450m straight between bends.
It's the same in the UK:
The highest recorded speed on 30mph roads was 122mph in South Yorkshire. For 20mph roads, the top speed was logged by North Wales Police at 88mph.
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Most people do actually know how to drive as required by test conditions, they just don't care.
you make a very strong case for mandatory black boxes for all drivers.
it wouldn’t stop people taking their supercars to track days. Because those would show by gps as not public highway.
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
It’s not really my fault if you don’t actually make the point you wanted to make!
I’m not horrifically opposed to the idea of speed limiters but would be more interested in them enforcing 20/30/40 than 70 on the safest roads in the UK. Personally I think it might be better to invest that effort in so more traffic cops who when they catch people who don’t know how to control their speed will check their tyres, breath, insurance details etc.
The idea that the UK acting alone would implement such a change is nonsensical. IIRC there is speed limiting tech being gradually introduced which required drivers to consciously exceed the limit. Presumably that will mean with increased culpability England and Wales will stop sending people on courses and actually impose points!
However, I’m just back from the south of France and I’m not going to take lectures on road safety from anyone there - the standard of driving was atrocious! It’s going some to make the Italians seem sensible!
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
I’m not horrifically opposed to the idea of speed limiters but would be more interested in them enforcing 20/30/40 than 70 on the safest roads in the UK.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
there’s good evidence that motorways flow better at lower speeds. When an average speed camera enforced limit is in place overtaking and tailgating drops. If it happens at 69 the same would happen at 70.
Black box way to go. Can't be hard nowadays to link GPS to speed. Ie there will be a record of travelling at 40 in a 30
One thing thst amazes me is how when I drive at the speed limit on dual carriageways that have variable limits I'm by far the slowest driver on the road.
Not so long ago I was driving at 50 across the Queensferry crossing, limit was 50. I was in the inside lane. There was a large arctic behind me hooting his horn and flashing his lights telling me to speed up, because, whilst he wasn't fast enough to overtake, he felt I was going too slow.
The fact is knobbers drive all kind of vehicles, not just audis and the like.
I’m just back from the south of France and I’m not going to take lectures on road safety from anyone there - the standard of driving was atrocious!
You were in a car rather than on foot or on a bike then.
I don't think anywhere has the monopoly on bad driving. One of the the features I noted in the UK was that I was usually several mph below the limit or stationary in a continuous stream of traffic - great for road safety!
It's surprising how much driving standards vary even between towns a few km apart down here. Pau is courteous, Tarbes is more aggressive and Bordeaux is properly **** you! It's no doubt similar in the UK. Have you driven in Birmingham? 😉
Were you at 50mph speedo or GPS, Tpbiker? In these parts people are often at the limit plus what the government allows you over -1 gps. In an 80kmh limit that means you'll often have 87/88kmh on the speedo as people are doing 84/85 gps. When I trundle along in the truck lane I've often got 96kmh on the speedo and if I dropped to 90kmh speedo I'd expect justified irritation from the truck drivers.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
Good and about time
Black box / greater enforcement would be top of my list but people will scream "what about my privacy" & greater enforcement adds more cost to the already cash strapped police forces.
You only have to see how slowly people drive past cameras & average speed recorded zones to know either of those options would work.
I'd rather be in with someone who drives quickly and concentrates on the task in hand than some who drives casually but isn't focussed.
My wife will be driving along an A road at 50mph then start talking about something and you can see her concentration drift. From 50 we've eased down to below 40 and she hasn't noticed. She'll then re-focus and be back to 50 again. I hate being a passenger with her.
Motorways - now so many are smart motorways and have blanket speed camera coverage I'm not sure how anyone gets away with going to far over the limit.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
not at all - I just think we should enforce limits everywhere. Motorways are by far the easiest to do as you could start with average cameras between junctions and densify it from there.
Rural roads need much lower limits - I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too. That would go both for Singletrack country lanes and rural a roads . (How you enforce rural limits other than black boxes is another matter).
I was on mountain roads where I witnessed multiple overtakes which would have been prosecuted in the UK as dangerous driving if they were spotted by a police. I didn’t pass any cyclists at all on the road - presumably too cold, and even pedestrians were very rare.I’m just back from the south of France and I’m not going to take lectures on road safety from anyone there - the standard of driving was atrocious!
You were in a car rather than on foot or on a bike then.
I don’t think it does - and there’s plenty of stupid driving in the UK. I’m not convinced that the top speed of the vehicles is the key issue though. Which your own post seems to support:?I don't think anywhere has the monopoly on bad driving.
whilst far from universal across the UK, that’s kind of my point - we should focus on fixing the issues not the “something must be done” stuff. I’m also a realist - so not only is the UK not going to be the only place in the world to require speedlimiters to be retrofitted we also aren’t going to have any resource to enforce it!One of the the features I noted in the UK was that I was usually several mph below the limit or stationary in a continuous stream of traffic - great for road safety!
I have, not for a while though. Actually I remember Malvern being worse than Brum - which I attributed to lots of old people in Zombie mode!It's surprising how much driving standards vary even between towns a few km apart down here. Pau is courteous, Tarbes is more aggressive and Bordeaux is properly **** you! It's no doubt similar in the UK. Have you driven in Birmingham? 😉
see you’ve already highlighted one of the issues with putting absolute speed limiters in! Not everyone’s vehicles agree so you still end up with overtakes.Were you at 50mph speedo or GPS, Tpbiker? In these parts people are often at the limit plus what the government allows you over -1 gps. In an 80kmh limit that means you'll often have 87/88kmh on the speedo as people are doing 84/85 gps. When I trundle along in the truck lane I've often got 96kmh on the speedo and if I dropped to 90kmh speedo I'd expect justified irritation from the truck drivers.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
not at all - I just think we should enforce limits everywhere. Motorways are by far the easiest to do as you could start with average cameras between junctions and densify it from there.
Rural roads need much lower limits - I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too. That would go both for Singletrack country lanes and rural a roads . (How you enforce rural limits other than black boxes is another matter).
im not sure if you’ve never left the Home Counties or live in a hypothetical bubble where people might build pavements along hundred of miles of rural roads that nobody will ever walk along? Some rural road limits are ridiculous for the circumstances but even if you dropped the limit to 20 - virtually nobody would walk or cycle then as either they would still be dodgy, or they are too far from civilisation to be useful.
I am not necessarily disputing your point, but the analysis of road closure v death is more complex than the simple algebra would suggest. A closed road might stop a patient with a cardiac problem getting to hospital on time. Displaced congestion may make it more likely that a pedestrian or cyclist is harmed on the now busier routes. Economic impact may mean the country can’t afford health, justice or education which lead to long term benefits. KPIs like deaths per mile or £ per hour closed are inevitably too simplistic. But I’m sceptical that actively limiting cars to 70 would have an ecconomic benefit through reduced motorway closures - e-bikes have their pedal assist capped and we all know how effectively that is policed.they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
see you’ve already highlighted one of the issues with putting absolute speed limiters in! Not everyone’s vehicles agree so you still end up with overtakes.
But I’m sceptical that actively limiting cars to 70 would have an ecconomic benefit through reduced motorway closures - e-bikes have their pedal assist capped and we all know how effectively that is policed.
The police on the billiard table flat N10 have no trouble pulling over the trucks coming up from the south with their limiters "trafiqués". They fly drones and any truck overtaking the flow of trucks gets pulled. All the truck limiters that haven't been tampered with agree well enough, I think we have the technology to get cars limited to the same speed. There will be so few going faster policing will be a piece of cake.
As for the pedal assist on bikes there have been threads on here about the police pulling bikes that have had their limiters cancelled. It seems to be policed as well or better than speeding in 20mph and 30mph limits. Very few fast e-bikes on the road but driving with the limiter on the car at 32mph in Brum I was clearly the exception.
People in the mountains often know their roads quite well. There are about three places to safely overtake up my local hill and the fact they are safe might not be apparent to someone unfamiliar with the lines of sight. The local drivers of slow vehicles also know them so let people past or pull into a chaining area, did you make it easy for people to overtake you or pull over in an chaining area to let those familiar with the road past? Driving cautiously and slowly on an unknown mountain road is sensible and so is letting those familiar with the road pass easily. Could it be that your driving on the mountain road had the same effect on the locals as driving with the limiter at 32mph in Brum with the difference that the limit on the mountain road was higher than your speed? 😉
I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too.
That's a wonderful idea, but where are all these pavements going to go... Or are you suggesting that the hedges are all pulled up to make room for the pavements no-one is going to use?
I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too.
Before you write it again maybe think about it for two minutes.
Were you at 50mph speedo or GPS, Tpbiker? In these parts people are often at the limit plus what the government allows you over -1 gps. In an 80kmh limit that means you'll often have 87/88kmh on the speedo as people are doing 84/85 gps. When I trundle along in the truck lane I've often got 96kmh on the speedo and if I dropped to 90kmh speedo I'd expect justified irritation from the truck drivers.
I was going by my speedo. But not sure how that justifys his actions. Even if I was 5mph under the limit, it's perfectly safe and legal to drive at that speed. The limit is the max, not the exact speed you must drive at!
we are talking about UK road safety proposals - there are barely any road policing officers never mind drone equipped ones! If you think truck limiters agree well enough - you should go for a drive up the M6/M74 where they all play leapfrog very slowly creeping past each other to gain 0.5 mph. That’s proof that the tech isn’t as good as you think and humans aren’t smart enough to just accept being in a queue.see you’ve already highlighted one of the issues with putting absolute speed limiters in! Not everyone’s vehicles agree so you still end up with overtakes.
But I’m sceptical that actively limiting cars to 70 would have an ecconomic benefit through reduced motorway closures - e-bikes have their pedal assist capped and we all know how effectively that is policed.
The police on the billiard table flat N10 have no trouble pulling over the trucks coming up from the south with their limiters "trafiqués". They fly drones and any truck overtaking the flow of trucks gets pulled. All the truck limiters that haven't been tampered with agree well enough, I think we have the technology to get cars limited to the same speed. There will be so few going faster policing will be a piece of cake.
some get pulled but it’s really by exception or after an incident, go to the right part of town (in nice weather) and you’ll find bikes making remarkable progress without turning the peddles at all. Ordinary beat cops will turn a blind eye.As for the pedal assist on bikes there have been threads on here about the police pulling bikes that have had their limiters cancelled. It seems to be policed as well or better than speeding in 20mph and 30mph limits. Very few fast e-bikes on the road
things must have improved! Last time I was in brum - getting to 32mph in most places would have been an aspiration!but driving with the limiter on the car at 32mph in Brum I was clearly the exception.
I did use a chaining lay-by to let a small queue pass on the only occasion that multiple cars were behind me for any length of time. I am perfectly familiar with courtesy when driving rural roads and that when driving an unfamiliar car on the “wrong” side of unfamiliar roads i am more cautious than a local.People in the mountains often know their roads quite well. There are about three places to safely overtake up my local hill and the fact they are safe might not be apparent to someone unfamiliar with the lines of sight. The local drivers of slow vehicles also know them so let people past or pull into a chaining area, did you make it easy for people to overtake you or pull over in an chaining area to let those familiar with the road past? Driving cautiously and slowly on an unknown mountain road is sensible and so is letting those familiar with the road pass easily. Could it be that your driving on the mountain road had the same effect on the locals as driving with the limiter at 32mph in Brum with the difference that the limit on the mountain road was higher than your speed? 😉
however we are straying even further off topic of the UK’s proposed changes to improve road safety.
I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too.
Before you write it again maybe think about it for two minutes.
I'm half way serious. Having road where there is no alternative for pedestrians but to walk in the carriageway as anything other than 20mph is clearly not safe and means walking (and cycling) are just not an option in many places. Perhaps we could start with anywhere there are houses.
We did a country walk a little while back where a footpath ended at a A road. The nearest footpath to continue on was about 100m up the road. I've done walks in the Cotswolds and South Downs where a footpath crosses a dual carriageway A road and the only protection you've got from vehicles that might be travelling at 80mph+ is a "warning peds crossing" sign. That might have been Ok 50 years ago when traffic volumes were much lower and cars were generally slower but isn't now.
I am a bit late to the thread but if we go back to the re-test for a moment. I think we can agree that people don't drive on the test the same way they do in normal driving conditions. I'm not sure that there's that much benefit in getting driving test instructors for tests while they're driving for the majority of retest scenarios.
This could be done with an automated kiosk or something like that, a simple questionnaire to check their knowledge, and then some hazard awareness, press the button when you see the motorbike or whatever, to test their hazard awareness. While this wouldn't test their eyesight, it would test their computational capabilities, so probably more useful than pure eyesight alone. There would also be the benefit of making people actually keep up to date with the new traffic laws.
These test kiosks could be as cheap as a screen, or you can just download them onto your phone to do it. Therefore, we can make them as regular or as often as possible, and there will be very little extra cost. Just mild inconvenience to the users. To reduce inconvenience, you must take this retest on the 5th year of your life, so 20, 25, 30, 35 etc. and within that year, so you've got 365 days to do it. Once it's done, tick, you're done. If you fail three times in a row, you've actually got to take a test with an instructor, something along those lines.