I think it’s a brilliant idea that they are mandatory every 10 years for folks that have previously been caught speeding. These types clearly can’t be trusted to adhere to the rules of the road on an ongoing basis
For those of us that have managed to keep a clean license for best part of 30 years, it’s clear that no such refresher is required however….
Discuss…
😉
I am still confused by the fact the instructor was adamant that the vehicle made no difference to the stopping distance. I thought she was very patronising but maybe this was necessary for some of the other attendees and I understand that a simple message is key to it landing in a 2hr course. However, the stopping distance must be variable based on vehicle weight, contact points ie tyre/wheel size, size of brakes, electronic aids etc…
A sweeping statement scientifically/technically, but maybe what she was getting at was a small car on small wheels exerts less force on the ground through a smaller contact patch, where as a fat range rover with big tyres and more mass on its bigger contact patch is fatter so in the end it all evens out (give or take).
There is also going to be a stopping distance requirement specified in law, that manfacturers build to?
dunno. devils advocate
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances-a2960086475/
save for "sports/sporty" cars, theyre all within a few feet of each other, over 130feet (According to this)
I did one a good few years ago and genuinely found it useful. There's not much to discuss really, they should be a thing that people have to do every five or so years to keep their licence and if you let it lapse you get to do a full re-test instead.
+1 on CBT and chuck in some kind of cycling in traffic thingy too while you're at it.
See also people with pretty fast cars that buy the cheapest tyres possible.. You’ve only got to look at tyre tests see the eyebrow raising difference in stopping distances between budjet and premium tyres!
We have been looking at buying a new car - very noticeable is that "expensive*" cars are being run on LingLong, Landsail and Sailune. I don't get a (new) £25k+ car with every safety aid under the sun, and then run on ditchfinders....
My mum voluntarily gave up her license after she went partially blind in one eye and couldn't judge distances properly anymore.
If she wanted to she could still be driving to this day.
dunno. devils advocate
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances-a2960086475/
save for “sports/sporty” cars, theyre all within a few feet of each other, over 130feet (According to this)
wheras the UK highway code specifies 180 feet
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/what-is-the-stopping-and-braking-distance-of-a-car
theyre all within a few feet of each other, over 130feet (According to this)
That's assuming they are all running the same tyres, among other variables which in reality isn't the case.
I edited my post above, but for illustration...
https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2022-Summer-Tyre-Market-Overview.htm
There's a good 5 metre stopping difference between the top of the table and the bottom.
The gap widens further in wet braking performance.
The standard of driving in general is appalling, in my opinon
It is, however it is still a lot better than in many other countries, amazingly enough.
That’s assuming they are all running the same tyres, among other variables which in reality isn’t the case.
I edited my post above, but for illustration…
https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2022-Summer-Tyre-Market-Overview.htm
/blockquote>Holy axis manipulation batman....
Scale running from 35 to 41 when the best to worst range is about 35.5 to 40.5. I mean it shows the data quite precisely, but seems to [allow you to subconsciously] miss the bigger picture
It is, however it is still a lot better than in many other countries, amazingly enough.
Yep accident stats in the UK are low compared with most of Europe.
Discuss
Well, I did mine after being caught slightly over the limit along Bath Road in Bristol just past Arno’s Vale. Was I aware of the actual speed limit? No. Why not? Because there weren’t any repeater signs, that I was aware of, and it was during a busy part of the day, and I was just maintaining the speed of the general flow of traffic, ie the same speed as every other car in front and behind. As it was busy, I was far more concerned with what all the other traffic was doing, what with rows of vehicles parked either side of the road, side turnings, etc.
As far as urban roads are concerned, it’s entirely possible to have roads that are, to all intents and purposes, identical, but with different speed limits - the A4 Bath Road in Chippenham has a 30 limit, whereas the A420 Bristol Road, which runs more or less parallel, has a 40 limit. Both are built up, other than the Bristol Road has a small field on one side for a short distance.
Slight hijack, I was driving through a road I’ve not driven before at the weekend, pavement, normal width, lined with houses and marked as a 40, I still can’t work out why it wasn’t a 30.
Exactly my point.
Holy axis manipulation batman….
If you read the preamble, they are the top 20 out of 50 tyres tested.
It's more an illustration really, to demonstrate that tyres are actually a critical component in the overall performance of any given braking system.
My mum voluntarily gave up her license after she went partially blind in one eye and couldn’t judge distances properly anymore.If she wanted to she could still be driving to this day.
My grandfather was pulled over by the police once for driving too slowly - it was a winter night, raining and the glare from oncoming headlights through the raindrops was causing him real difficulties. Can't remember if this was before or after his cataracts operation but either way, it was clear that he simply should not be behind the wheel of a car. It took MONTHS to convince him of this.
The final straw was that insurance simply got too much because on every other journey he'd be hitting a wall, parked car, bollard etc. When he finally sold the car, the wheels were a wreck from being kerbed. But at no point did a doctor say "you must stop driving now". It was left to my Mum and to his next door neighbours to tell him (time and time and time again) that he shouldn't be driving and he took it really badly.
It's quite scary the number of people out there who are in that situation - eyesight, cognitive abilities etc have slowly declined yet they're either blissfully unaware of it or they're actively choosing to ignore it.
wheras the UK highway code specifies 180 feet
> https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/what-is-the-stopping-and-braking-distance-of-a-car
Think that test just includes braking distances, whereas highway code and so on include the reaction distance as well, i.e. time to react plus braking distance.
It is, however it is still a lot better than in many other countries, amazingly enough.
Yep accident stats in the UK are low compared with most of Europe.
Does that mean that they can't be improved?
Well yes! Reaction time is a crucial variable, but if you've got poor tyres your already at a mechanical disadvantage from the get go.
When you think about it, the braking system goes all the way from your eyeballs to the rubber on the road.. With many more variables in between.
If you read the preamble, they are the top 20 out of 50 tyres tested.
It’s more an illustration really, to demonstrate that tyres are actually a critical component in the overall performance of any given braking system.
I'll admit that I had missed it was the top 20 tyres.
But my point is that "illustration" makes it seem like the top tyre is amazing as the line is only a fraction of the length of the worst/20th place tyre. But in reality when you read the axis, it is 12% better.
Now that 12% (less if you include thinking time) could be the difference between killing someone and not touching them, but it is still misrepresenting the data to show the top tyre apparently so vastly superior to the worse ones.
Think that test just includes braking distances, whereas highway code and so on include the reaction distance as well, i.e. time to react plus braking distance.
I'd already taken that off. HC states 18m thinking, 55m (180ft) braking from 60mph.
rigidly dropping to 2nd and 15mph for every roundabout even when clearly clear
I still shudder at the near miss I had when driving up to a local roundabout and only at the last second seeing a road cyclist crossing it at exactly the right speed that meant the road sign was always between my eyes and them... Yikes yikes yikes.
I like 20mph zones (as a car driver) - so much less stress! because it gives you that extra buffer to see things and react before your paths cross. I know this is not a universal attitude 😀
We've just come back from a holiday in Jordan, and although the driving was random and casual to a fault - the hour's drive round the outskirts of Amman was taxing and I was the passenger! - you just could not drop attention ever ever ever - it wasn't aggressive.
Quite a lot of people drove very slowly and would move over to let others pass as a matter of course. People didn't seem fixated on speed or prone to tailgating and although there weren't pedestrian crossings, you could just sort of launch yourself into traffic when an opportunity arose and the cars would accept that and let you through.
Canary Islands as well, drivers just seemed more mellow.
I ♥️ the HC but would love to see a cultural change here to a more chill, co-operative attitude to road use.
The OH had to do the "naughty step" course once - I was gobsmacked as a very calm safe driver - like so many here, the old "caught doing 38 - thought it was 40 zone - this was not correct" story. Said was a good interesting course.
Why do we not do good quality drivers Ed as part of the mandatory curriculum? Teach the "naughty step" course to 10 year olds. Get simulators in primary schools. Establish good habits before the hell of puberty kicks in.
A fair point! But they are just testing tyre performance, to include a subjective variable such as reaction time would make the tests pretty meaningless.
I may have made my point badly, but what I'm trying to say is that you can buy yourself a not insignificant mechanical advantage just by buying better tyres.
I had to do one this year for doing 35 in a 30, I too was surprised by the calibre of other drivers on the course and I would support a retest or something every 10 years or so for drivers.
Agreed. Refresher every ten years and suspend the licence of everyone involved in an accident until they’ve sat a refresher course.
Even the victim?
^by the way, if you are about my age, and educated in England; Science GCSE (mandatory subject) discusses this as part of the curriculum on experimental results and analysis.
That is - the basic context that thinking time is linear to speed, reation time is not; and the overall result is the sum of the two terms.
Of course half the population probably pushed that out of their brain to fill it with the names of love island contestants.
But don't say that it isn't taught.
I am still confused by the fact the instructor was adamant that the vehicle made no difference to the stopping distance. I thought she was very patronising but maybe this was necessary for some of the other attendees and I understand that a simple message is key to it landing in a 2hr course. However, the stopping distance must be variable based on vehicle weight, contact points ie tyre/wheel size, size of brakes, electronic aids etc…
Possibly not wanting to confuse things, just keeping it simple for the hard of thinking, but she was wrong, just simple physics show that differences in weight, mass and coefficient of friction will have a dramatically different result, especially when weather conditions enter into it.
The HC list of stopping distances is, I understand it, years out of date, which Top Gear showed some years back. Unless it’s been updated recently, it goes back to when most cars had drum brakes, radial-ply tyres and no fancy aids. Just differences in tyres make a big difference in braking efficiency; I used to but budget ditch-finders on my old Octavia, but I’ve now got CrossClimate+ on the front of my EcoSport, and there is a significant difference in handling and braking in poor weather.
what I’m trying to say is that you can buy yourself a not insignificant mechanical advantage just by buying better tyres.
This seems like an odd tangent to me.
Why stop at tyres? Why not upgrade pads and rotors, the same as we do on bikes? Or just buy the car with the best braking ability at any given price. Most people are just happy with a car that stops. (I can't remember the last time I had to do anything remotely like an emergency stop.)
Yeah me to – the way in which speed is shed when breaking got me. I can’t remember the exact numbers but it was something like if 2 cars break to a full stop at the same time, one doing 70 and one 100mph, and the car doing 70 stops just before crashing into something, the car doing 100mph is still doing around 70mph when it hits.
Yea i found that interesting and the stuff about the impact forces at different speeds.
Hazy now but i'm pretty sure i never learned about that stuff when i took my test. But i will admit to doing "just enough to pass" (because i was 17)
Does that mean that they can’t be improved?
No, but it does suggest that anyone called the standard 'appauling' or whatever has a rather unusual reference point. It also suggests you'd be into diminishing returns if you've already got one of the lowest accident rates. Assuming reducing accidents is what you're after.
Why stop at tyres? Why not upgrade pads and rotors.. the
An equally valid point but tyres need to be bought more frequently and are a more consumable item. So it's a good way to build in extra safety.
For example I would consider pirelli p6000 suicidaly dangerous in the wet where as something like a conti premium contact could stop you an a 2pence coin, reletivley speaking, the performance difference is staggering but both tyres are perfectly legal.
Anyway I'll stop derailing the thread with tyre chat.
I am still confused by the fact the instructor was adamant that the vehicle made no difference to the stopping distance. I thought she was very patronising
I had that too. I posited that I wasn't driving a Ford Anglia with drum brakes and was talked over with "but thinking time hasn't changed!"
Went on one years ago. Spent the afternoon being patronised and found it utterly pointless. Next time, if there ever is one, I'll happily take the points on my license and thank the lord that I won't have to sit through all that patronising drivel ever again.
^by the way, if you are about my age, and educated in England; Science GCSE (mandatory subject) discusses this as part of the curriculum on experimental results and analysis.
That is – the basic context that thinking time is linear to speed, reation time is not; and the overall result is the sum of the two terms.Of course half the population probably pushed that out of their brain to fill it with the names of love island contestants.
But don’t say that it isn’t taught.
😂 Deary me, that’s a rash assumption you’re making there, assuming that everyone has had the same education that you have! FWIW, I’m 68 in four months, I did physics at school, which was a secondary modern, and I scraped through a grade 5 CSE.
Not to mention bloody patronising and condescending. 🤬
Was I aware of the actual speed limit? No. Why not? Because there weren’t any repeater signs, that I was aware of
There weren't signs, or you didn't see them?
If there aren't repeater signs but there are street lights then it's a 30 limit.
it was during a busy part of the day, and I was just
... daydreaming?
As far as urban roads are concerned, it’s entirely possible to have roads that are, to all intents and purposes, identical, but with different speed limits
... which are posted on little poles at regular intervals if it's not 30.
I did qualify it with saying you needed to be about my age - but if you were, it was included in a mandatory subject.
The modern style of making things relatable to every day life at the expense of "traditional" learning does have some benefits.
Doing physics GCSE about 50 years ago you likely learnt more about pure physics than I did in physics A level.
Even the victim?
Yes even the victim.
I'm happy to admit there's plenty I could have done when running events back in my mind and I've seen enough accidents and near misses to know that the blame rarely lies 100% with one party, regardless of how the police/insurance see it (or are told what's happened)
Quite a lot of people drove very slowly and would move over to let others pass as a matter of course. People didn’t seem fixated on speed or prone to tailgating and although there weren’t pedestrian crossings, you could just sort of launch yourself into traffic when an opportunity arose and the cars would accept that and let you through.
Reminds me of what an Italian friend told me when we were driving over there: "Ignore your mirrors. you concentrate on what's happening in front of you." Makes some sense: If everyone throws all their attention forward, it should all work out.
Someone's pulling out in front of you - check mirrors - where are the following cars, what's safest - brake or swerve into the next lane?
vs
just reacting to what's in front and let everyone react to what's in front of them without splitting their attention between looking ahead, looking behind to the side, assessing different options, then taking action.
Reminds me of what an Italian friend told me when we were driving over there: “Ignore your mirrors. you concentrate on what’s happening in front of you.”.................
You did notice how dented the cars out there are? 😀
Yeah me to – the way in which speed is shed when breaking got me.
Yeah, and it's even more relevant to folk who are happy doing 35 in a 30. If 30 means you just stop in time, 35 means you're possibly still doing 20 when you plough into the kid.
Most professions that involve the use of complicated machinery or techniques in a hazardous environment need some sort of recertification, why not driving a vehicle on the road?
Annual in house safety training, bi-annual external ships lifeboat Coxn refresher, 4 yearly external safety training, 5 yearly confirmation of validating sea time, as the bare minimum to keep doing my job...
And Joe blogs gets to drive manically everyday with no confirmation that he knows that the highway code changed many times since his driving test..
This seems like an odd tangent to me.
Why stop at tyres? Why not upgrade pads and rotors, the same as we do on bikes? Or just buy the car with the best braking ability at any given price. Most people are just happy with a car that stops. (I can’t remember the last time I had to do anything remotely like an emergency stop.)
One could argue that tyres are by far the weak link in the chain? Rotors and pads can be upgraded, but if youre activating your ABS, youre on the limit of the tyres so bigger brakes are going to do nothing for you.
Having said that, i agree entirely. I dont think i drive in a manner where by i could ever get into a situation where i would need to push the brake pedal through the firewall.
Having said that my only vehicle is a Fat Ford Transit, so doesnt lend itself to "spirited" driving.
We get annual driving assessments. A recent thing. The rumour is that after they tried to discipline a driver who had 3 bumps in a short space of time he argued that he hsad never been assessed or offered any training.
At the start of the assessment the instructor told everyone to drive normally. Which was pointless as obviously everyone treated it as a test. 10 year assessments would be the same. Bad habits like speeding would vanish for 45 minutes.
Reminds me of what an Italian friend told me when we were driving over there: “Ignore your mirrors. you concentrate on what’s happening in front of you.” Makes some sense
Nah, it's good to know what's happening around you in case you need to take evasive action. And if course, if you need to change lanes then what's happening behind and alongside you is rather important.
I am still confused by the fact the instructor was adamant that the vehicle made no difference to the stopping distance. I thought she was very patronising but maybe this was necessary for some of the other attendees and I understand that a simple message is key to it landing in a 2hr course. However, the stopping distance must be variable based on vehicle weight, contact points ie tyre/wheel size, size of brakes, electronic aids etc…
It must be part of the training the instructors are given. Mine was absolutely adamant that the laws of physics don’t apply to cars. All i had suggested was that if we can assume that the driver was breaking at the point of impact then the force would be a negative one.
The other part I found irritating was the insistence that no matter how stupid the pedestrian is, eg looking at their phone with headphones on when they step into the road its still the drivers fault.
Random/ten year testing won't change much as we can all behave ourselves when we know we're being watched.
GPS tracker that measures forces of acceleration, braking, cornering and adherence to speed limits with the information used for insurance and tax purposes. Could easily be done with technology in most phones.
Unfortunately we've built our societies to accommodate cars, not people, and as such people feel that driving is their right as they see it as their only option.
The other part I found irritating was the insistence that no matter how stupid the pedestrian is, eg looking at their phone with headphones on when they step into the road its still the drivers fault.
I'm more than happy with that, sure the odd rare case might be just maybe entirely the pedestrians fault there are very few instances where stupidity won't give you a warning. Staring at phones and headphones are generally pretty noticable, everyone knows people at crossings do daft stuff. IF you see a dog or a small child* or a bunch of the yout dicking about you should be ready to stop. I've come to a complete stop on a busy road because a drunk guy was all over the shop and sure enough face planted into the road because that was the only way i could guarantee my behaviour wouldn't hurt someone**
*stupid is the wrong word, just behaving unnexpectedly.
**I'm not claiming to be a perfect or even an average driver (like 70% are), I've made mistakes, i've even started a thread on here about one idiotic mistake I made. But a moment of distraction or stupidity in a car has potentially big consequences for far more than me than an idiot on a phone.
^ Yep, people do stupid stuff. It shouldn't cost you your life. The licenced operator of several tonnes of dangerous machinary, naturally takes the responsibility not to endanger people around them, regardless of their stupidity.