MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Some absolute weapons calling in.
It’ll be the usual thing with red-faced middle aged men who’ve not read the Highway Code since they passed their test in 1987. As a total aside, I wonder how long it will be before an insurance company will offer a discount for people who’ve re-done their theory test.
I wonder how long it will be before an insurance company will offer a discount for people who’ve re-done their theory test.
Or, for those who got their licence pre-1996, "ever done a theory test"
I always thought the pedestrian crossing the junction having priority was always a thing anyway?
Lets just check our bingo cards...
1. Cyclists don't pay road tax
2. Cyclists should have registration plates and insurance
3. Cyclists all cycle 2 abreast to wind drivers up
4. Cyclists jump red traffic lights
I always thought the pedestrian crossing the junction having priority was always a thing anyway?
The rule has changed though hasn't it? Previously it was if the pedestrian was already on the road, whereas the new priority is for the pedestrian waiting to cross but still on the pavement.
The rule has changed though hasn’t it? Previously it was if the pedestrian was already on the road, whereas the new priority is for the pedestrian waiting to cross but still on the pavement.
Yes, I thought once you had a foot of the pavement you had priority, although no end of drivers have explained to me that they disagree! I regularly assert my right to see what happens....
Or, for those who got their licence pre-1996, “ever done a theory test”
It's entirely plausible that someone whose done their theory can drive just as badly as someone who hasn't. Just an FYI.
Have any actual "rules" changed? The highway code just references pieces of legislation for the "must" rules.
Has any parent legislation changed or is it just that the wording in the highway code has changed?
Have any actual “rules” changed? The highway code just references pieces of legislation for the “must” rules.
It's just a more clearly defined set of rules that formally establishes the hierarchy of road users. This is one of the better articles on it.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2022/01/new-2022-highway-code-changes-are-you-aware-of-the-new-rules/
As an aside, some of the media frothing and clickbait has been appalling. It really shows that a high percentage of the mainstream media is not interested in informing the readership of facts, it's interested in generating as much angry clickbait as possible. Some of the mis-reporting has been almost criminal.
Or, for those who got their licence pre-1996, “ever done a theory test”
three questions while parked up in the test centre car park at the end wasn't it?
Have any actual “rules” changed? The highway code just references pieces of legislation for the “must” rules.
Has any parent legislation changed or is it just that the wording in the highway code has changed?
A bit of a moot point.
The Highway Code functions similar to an ACOP.
It's not actual law but is seen as "best practice", so if you have an incident and you weren't following it, you should be in the shit.
If you weren't following the highway code, there's a law behind that "rule" that you actually broke. That's what they'll get you for. No one ever got nicked for breaking highway code, rule xyz.
1. Cyclists don’t pay road tax
2. Cyclists should have registration plates and insurance
3. Cyclists all cycle 2 abreast to wind drivers up
4. Cyclists jump red traffic lights
5. War on motorists
6. Will cause an increase in pollution
7. Lycra clad
8. Some hard man story that never happened about getting one over pedestrians / cyclists
JefWachowchow
Free MemberI always thought the pedestrian crossing the junction having priority was always a thing anyway?
Only if the ped was actually in the road wasn't it?
Good change to start seeding the idea that cars aren't the most important thing in society. Doubt in itself it will make much practical difference as a significant amount of drivers already ignore zebra crossings.
Really does make me thing we need regular testing for drivers.
It's always seemed slightly dangerous that cyclists are taught to "take the lane" at pinch points, but drivers are never told about this. Recipe for conflict.
Even an online highway code test every few years would help.
Stop trying to logic or argue your way to peace with the idiots. Even if they do know the rules, they just don't care.
Unless there is regular high profile and well publicised enforcement, all that's changed is that more people will get to say "but I had right of way" on their headstone/claim form.
I was listening to a LBC call-in on Saturday morning, same subject and same folk calling in I bet.
Funny how so many car/van/lorry drivers are incapable of overtaking a pair of side-by-side cyclists.
No one ever got nicked for breaking highway code, rule xyz.
No, but people have been nicked for driving without due care and attention (or similar) when they didn't do something they "should" have done.
It’s always seemed slightly dangerous that cyclists are taught to “take the lane” at pinch points, but drivers are never told about this. Recipe for conflict.
Interestingly, or not, when I learned to drive in 1992, my instructor was very particular about me understanding about cyclists and other vulnerable road users and how they should behave for their own safety and how I should behave as a motorist. She wasn't a cyclist - just felt it was really important that as a new driver I knew. Also made sure I knew how to change a wheel if punctured; top up washer; oil etc. Not required but so very very useful. Stuck with me ever-since. haven't got a clue how cars actually work though haha
To be fair, I thought it was a pretty reasonable discussion with the exception of a couple of knuckle draggers. The ex copper / driving instructor was especially good.
Really does make me thing we need regular testing for drivers.
+1.
lowey
Full MemberTo be fair, I thought it was a pretty reasonable discussion with the exception of a couple of knuckle draggers. The ex copper / driving instructor was especially good.
Missed that, was it Reg Local? If so he also has a youtube channel, few books etc.
I'm not sure some people actually know how to drive, on a discussion somewhere a driver was asking what he was supposed to do when he was giving a cyclist 1.5m clearance when overtaking but there was a car coming towards him on the other side of the road. I presume he just regularly overtakes and crashes straight into other cars as he's not sure what he should do.
As a total aside, I wonder how long it will be before an insurance company will offer a discount for people who’ve re-done their theory test.
Even an online highway code test every few years would help.
Given that insurance cost (a pretty good proxy of risk?) gets cheaper the longer ago you sat your tests I think we can presume that insurers don't actually see a link between theoretical HC knowledge and likelihood of causing injury/damage to others.
It might be a reasonable sanction for those caught breaking the rules though rather than (a) sit in a classroom and nod politely for a morning; (b) pay a little over a tank of fuel in a fine. I don't know if anyone has any actual data on whether those involved in (serious) accidents are more likely to have previous points (or awareness courses)?
However, I suspect most of the fear we experience on the roads is not from people who couldn't pass a test if they had to, so not sure what a retest actually achieves for 99% of drivers - except a cost, hassle etc - and probably some perfectly good drivers getting in a load of shit for simply forgetting (or being unable to book a test in time).
Really does make me thing we need regular testing for drivers.
Plenty of knobbers know the rules but choose not to follow them. Regular enforcement is required, but round town traffic cops are a distant memory and after 7pm it's practically anything goes.
This seems a sensible report:
Chris Boardman was on BBC TV on Saturday morning. Usual rubbish coming up. Chris do you know the new rules etc etc ?
Questions from viewers. I'm in my car at a junction and the lights have changed and there is a pedestrian crossing, what should I do ?
Chris was a little taken aback, and said, "well and sensible driver would wait for them to cross".
As we all know there are many 'entitled' drivers out there that give way to no-one, including other vehicles.
Round here people are whining about a proposal for 20mph limits in villages - 'can't drive that slow', 'won't be enforced', '30 is fine' etc etc. You can point out the difference in survivability of getting run over at 30 vs 20 but it makes no difference. Some people are just immune to having their mind opened even a fraction.
1. Cyclists don’t pay road tax
2. Cyclists should have registration plates and insurance
3. Cyclists all cycle 2 abreast to wind drivers up
4. Cyclists jump red traffic lights
5. Cyclists should wear helmets and high viz
Ride as and where you feel safest.
And that includes the pavement.
But always with due care and attention.
I regularly assert my right to see what happens….
Yeah I had a bit of a run-in with a bloke a couple of years ago who swerved around me when I was in the middle of the very minor road (in fact it was just an access road to a school) and was so close I banged on his side window (how very dare I). Apparently he knew the rules about who has priority but it was my fault because it was dark and I was wearing a dark coat.
You can point out the difference in survivability of getting run over at 30 vs 20 but it makes no difference.
This is the one that gets me - the difference is huge & the 'inconvenience' minimal. What's the fing problem?!
These reactionary motorist types get so angry because motorists have been treated as the most privileged road users for several decades now and they resent any loss of privilege. However, driving a car was already fairly miserable - think the tragedy of the commons - with a huge gulf between the dreams of open roads and personal autonomy vs the reality of busy roads and other motorists. If hell is other people it's also other motorists!
There is hard evidence IIRC that driving actually raises stress levels, which probably explains road rage. Sadly, cyclists (as an undifferentiated group) are a scapegoat for this miserable reality of motoring.
Apparently he knew the rules about who has priority but it was my fault because it was dark and I was wearing a dark coat.
That's why I'm more than happy to look like a dork wearing a hi-vis all year. Also, I always wear a helmet and use lights and reflectors when dark or low light.
If I'm ever in an accident and it goes to court I want there to be no doubt that a) I'm a responsible cyclist, and b) I made every effort to be seen.
jimdubleyou
Full Member
No one ever got nicked for breaking highway code, rule xyz.No, but people have been nicked for driving without due care and attention (or similar) when they didn’t do something they “should” have done.
Correct. That's the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 3 IIRC and makes my earlier point that was only particularly quoted.
That’s why I’m more than happy to look like a dork wearing a hi-vis all year. Also, I always wear a helmet and use lights and reflectors when dark or low light.
Steady lights on F & R all year long. Something nice & bright too. No so bright it's blinding but bright enough to make me look like a scooter or moped. Tends to have a positive effect IMHO.
Stop trying to logic or argue your way to peace with the idiots. Even if they do know the rules, they just don’t care.
This.
Facts mean nothing in this discussion. As pedestrians and cyclists there needs to be a moving on from trying to persuade around facts, because the argument for many is a zealous expectation of a right to drive a motor vehicle unimpeded.
There is hard evidence IIRC that driving actually raises stress levels
I think the problem is the human brain/body has not evolved to travel at the speeds cars allow. We evolved over many years to travel at 5-20? km per hour. The brain can cope with seeing the environment at that speed.
Head up to 30mph in a car, add modern distractions like other cars, road signs, music etc and there is no chance a human can process all the information and not miss things, like other cars, cyclists, pedestrians (even roads sings for congestion charging!).
So the rules and guidance might change but we will all be in self driving personal transport long before we have evolved to physically handle the speeds we want to travel at.
Oh and none of the above applies to the driving gods on here. I was meaning drivers in general not the highly experienced and evolved drivers of STW 😉
Turned off after a few minutes. Can't be bothered. **** the lot of em.
Having had two offspring pass their driving tests in the last few years, I was shocked at how little attention the Highway Code got. In fact, I don't think it got any attenton whatsoever (apart from this old duffer banging on about it...)
There is a brief focus on the "Theory Test" which is a glorified video game / monkey-multiple-choice test, that you're coached to win/pass. Once the "Theory Test" hurdle is overcome, it never figures again and one is free to get on with DRIVING. With both of my kids (neither of whom are aggressive, and both I would now class as decent drivers) I had to point out that it was the car driver's responsibility not to run people over, rather than the pedestrian's responsibility to get out of the way.
It could be the instructors we used (we only used a couple), but it's a far cry from when I did my test(s) in the 1980s where we had to learn our braking distances, and pretty much the whole of the HC, chapter and verse*.
(*I knew I had failed my first bike test when, at the end, the examiner started asking questions about what the differences were between various types of level-crossing signs.)
Ride as and where you feel safest.
And that includes the pavement.
But always with due care and attention.
Crap haiku but agree completely. Some pavements are fine, others are unsuitable but that's covered by due care and attention.
There is hard evidence IIRC that driving actually raises stress levels, which probably explains road rage
Yup, I hate it, just had some idiot overtake a cyclist and force me to slam the brakes on this morning, couldn't wait a few seconds until either I passed or the cyclist went round the outside of the 2 lane roundabout they were approaching.
It’s entirely plausible that someone whose done their theory can drive just as badly as someone who hasn’t. Just an FYI.
@mrlebowski I don't disagree - and as others have noted, there will always be some who are aware of the rules but choose not to comply with them. Was just making the point that there's a significant proportion of drivers out there who took their test before the separate theory test was introduced - myself included. Whilst the theory test in it's current form isn't perfect, it surely has to be a better test of knowledge than being asked to correctly identify 3 road sign plates having made it back to the test centre as I was. Assuming most licence holders will have changed from paper licences to photocards which need renewing every 10 years, I really don't think it would be too difficult to require applicants to take a theory test...?
Plenty of knobbers know the rules but choose not to follow them.
There's a lot of discussion on one of the "local town forums" relevant to me at the moment - it's the standard stuff - bins not being collected, parking, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and cycling on pavements / through red lights / wearing all black / cyclist bingo.
Now the new HC rules are up there with the frothing at the keyboard about entitled cyclists / no road tax / 17-abreast etc. It's the same folk who are complaining about LTNs - saying that roads are for everyone, everyone should share the road etc who seem surprised that (a) cyclists are on the pavement and (b) that drivers are being asked to drive carefully / bear greater responsibility.
They're so close to joining the dots - cyclists are on the pavements because the roads are dangerous and if you want cyclists on the roads and off the pavements you need to create safe space for them - and in complaining about the dreadful imposition on your freedom not to cut them up you're demonstrating that you're incapable of sharing the road in the first place!
It's also quite amazing how many drivers are huge fans of the Highway Code when it comes to children riding on pavements but absolutely lose their shit when fined for ignoring speed or bus gate / bus lane road signs that are perfectly lawful under the, err, Highway Code...
Funny how so many car/van/lorry drivers are incapable of overtaking a pair of side-by-side cyclists.
And yet can overtake 4 or 5 other cars on a road with double whites down the middle as I have witnessed a fair few times going over the Woodhead...
Twitter is ablaze with red faced anger because cyclists can now ride "in the middle of the road".
@squirrelking - I was briefly enamoured with motoring when I lived in Australia and had a Jap import. The roads were generally much wider, straighter, and relatively traffic-free compared to the UK, however. The weather was also much better.
I hate driving so much these days I'd be unable to do a job that forced me to commute by car. Commuting into Manchester by bicycle is necessary for sanity preservation! 😀
Whilst the theory test in it’s current form isn’t perfect, it surely has to be a better test of knowledge than being asked to correctly identify 3 road sign plates having made it back to the test centre as I was. Assuming most licence holders will have changed from paper licences to photocards which need renewing every 10 years, I really don’t think it would be too difficult to require applicants to take a theory test…?
It could form part of the regular re-test. I'd be in favour of that.
That’s why I’m more than happy to look like a dork wearing a hi-vis all year. Also, I always wear a helmet and use lights and reflectors when dark or low light.
If I’m ever in an accident and it goes to court I want there to be no doubt that a) I’m a responsible cyclist, and b) I made every effort to be seen.
I always find it funny that the people who moan about not being able to see you seem to be travelling in a box with much more brighter and effective lighting than a bicycle light and they actually did see you.
I always find it funny that the people who moan about not being able to see you seem to be travelling in a box with much more brighter and effective lighting than a bicycle light and they actually did see you.
MiL climbed out of a grey car a few weeks ago while asking why all pedestrians and cyclists weren't made to wear high viz...she had consumed her Daily Mail ration that morning
To be fair, she quickly changed her thoughts when we discussed it, and had a rare moment of clarity that the DM is disingenuous on a regular basis.
Just had a look on the comments on Twitter, some absolute nobbers on there.
That’s why I’m more than happy to look like a dork wearing a hi-vis all year. Also, I always wear a helmet and use lights and reflectors when dark or low light.
Sorry I should have made it clear on my post - I was just walking my dog, I wasn't on a bike. He just turned left on a well-lit (20mph speed limit) road and managed not to see me or, despite his apparent understanding of the rules, decided to close-pass me.
I'm all for mandatory retests and I'm also a fan of the car licence mirroring the bike licence where you have to do staged tests to let you operate larger vehicles. There's absolutely no reason that someone who passed their test in a Toyota Aygo should be in control of a SUV / 4 x 4 without further testing.
There’s absolutely no reason that someone who passed their test in a Toyota Aygo should be in control of a SUV / 4 x 4 without further testing.
Why on earth not? Riding a smaller bike compared to a high-powered superbike is a very different proposition than driving a bigger car to the one you passed your test in.
Why on earth not?
For the same reason that you don't pass your PPL in a Cessna then go out and buy a Learjet.
Driving is the ONLY activity where there is not compulsory ongoing training, mandatory certifications and some form of "progression". OK, there's some extra stuff for HGV but in common use, there is no other area of life where you can wander through with literally no other training other than a 60-90 min test in your late teens.
I passed my test in a 1L Nissan Micra. I was given no further info or advice or training on driving anything bigger / more powerful, nothing on towing, nothing on motorway driving...
On the face of it, that's insane! In no other walk of life, in no career would that be allowed.
nothing on towing, nothing on motorway driving…
That is different than further testing to drive larger cars - I tend to agree there should be some especially on motorway driving.
We also have the technology now to stop a car from going faster than the speed limit. This is something I'd like to see mandated on new vehicles.
We also have the technology now to stop a car from going faster than the speed limit. This is something I’d like to see mandated on new vehicles.
We have the technology but it isn't infallible though. I think I have mentioned this before on another thread - near me there is a residential road with the normal speed limit, however it passes a school with a 5mph limit within the grounds and the vehicle thinks it is the speed limit for the road. When my nice new car suddenly started to slow, I quickly switched off the speed limiter function and haven't touched it since.
johndoh
Why on earth not? Riding a smaller bike compared to a high-powered superbike is a very different proposition than driving a bigger car to the one you passed your test in.
Weight
Micra - 1104
BMX X5 - 2510
Top Speed
Micra - 160
X5 - 230
0-60
Micra - 17 seconds
X5 - 5 seconds
Do you honestly think those two machines should be operated on the same licence?
Go forward a few years and imagine the fury of Mr and Mrs Daily-Mail as their expensive autonomous car refuses to endanger other road users 🙂
On the face of it, that’s insane! In no other walk of life, in no career would that be allowed.
As long as it's for recreation, you can go and buy a several tonnes of boat and just head out to sea with absolutely no training.
We have the technology but it isn’t infallible though
Yeah, I've got a courtesy car at the mo, shows speed limits on the dash. I left my work site today and about 30metres (could've been more/less I didn't measure it) up the 40mph road it was still showing the site limit of 10mph. Could be a problem if the engine was limited with 40mph traffic coming up behind you!
Do you honestly think those two machines should be operated on the same licence?
Well the vast majority of people seem to make the transition without major concerns so I'd say so yes. At the end of the day if the new driver is so unaware as to be able to get themselves into trouble in a large and more powerful car after they have passed their test then I would suggest that they would be just as capable of causing an accident in the Micra - they can both go quickly enough in any speed limit as to cause serious accidents if the driver isn't driving within their limits.
BTW, a base model Micra can do 0-60 in <12 seconds so stop cheating with your figures 😉
as their expensive autonomous car refuses to endanger other road user
Not a problem. Mercedes are targeting that market.
Micra – 1104
BMX X5 – 2510...
Do you honestly think those two machines should be operated on the same licence?
Of course not, for starters you can't signal* in a bwm so why should you have to pass a test which checks you do?
*[well you can flash your headlights at drivers having the temerity to do 70 ish in lane 3 but since you don't drive on a motorway in you test that's irrelevant]
johndoh
Well the vast majority of people seem to make the transition without major concerns so I’d say so yes. At the end of the day if the new driver is so unaware as to be able to get themselves into trouble in a large and more powerful car after they have passed their test then I would suggest that they would be just as capable of causing an accident in the Micra – they can both go quickly enough in any speed limit as to cause serious accidents if the driver isn’t driving within their limits.
BTW, a base model Micra can do 0-60 in <12 seconds so stop cheating with your figures 😉
First result on google
I'm sure the vast majority op people could transition to a x seater minibus or a 3 tonne box van and transition to motorway driving but we have additional tests or you think we should for them.
Do I have to?
Fuel type
Petrol
Engine capacity, cm³
999
Acceleration 0–62mph, sec
11.8
Max. speed, Mph
111
From the Nissan website engine specifications for a basic new Micra
The vehicle you got your figures from was a 1997 Nissan Micra.
Whilst the theory test in it’s current form isn’t perfect, it surely has to be a better test of knowledge than being asked to correctly identify 3 road sign plates having made it back to the test centre as I was.
Not really. Being asked 3 random questions which you have to get 100% may not be easier that asking 40 multiple choice questions where the answer is obvious.
I had to learn/study the whole highway code to be able to cover the 3 questions to ensure I got the answers correct. I wouldn't have studied any more or less for the multiple choice test.
And as with most learning, if you don't use it you will soon forget most of it.
LBC article about this posted on FB is titled something like 'Road Rage fears due to new highway code rules' or something like that - which sounds like borderline encouraging/legitimising road rage to me.
Indeed it's like encouraging people to take more care will make them more angry.
Yeah, locking your front door could cause criminals to get angry and violent.
Having had two offspring pass their driving tests in the last few years, I was shocked at how little attention the Highway Code got.
My eldest passed about 7 weeks ago. She didn't read the HC.
There is a brief focus on the “Theory Test” which is a glorified video game / monkey-multiple-choice test, that you’re coached to win/pass. Once the “Theory Test” hurdle is overcome, it never figures again and one is free to get on with DRIVING
This is accurate - she basically took the mock tests until she understood the way the questions fell, then passed her real test.
She didn't learn to drive, she learned to pass her test, and we've had to suffer the learning bit. For instance, her instructor's car had a hill start function, so she was never taught how to do a real hill start. We live in Swansea, which is built on hills. Lots of steep, awkward hills. Not teaching a pupil how to do a proper hill start around here seems like lunacy until you realise that they aren't being taught to drive...
And maybe it was the same back when I did my test, but I suspect not because there were so few features on cars back then. You had no option other than to actually use a handbrake, etc. Although. I've never really worked out why there was so much emphasis on reversing perfectly around corners. 😀 )
There’s absolutely no reason that someone who passed their test in a Toyota Aygo should be in control of a SUV / 4 x 4 without further testing.
You talking about me?
Passed test in 1974 aged 17 while an apprentice plant & vehicle mechanic, in a Triumph 1500. Following day I was driving Ford D series trucks. Single rear axle, under 3 tons unladen.
I currently drive minibuses for a local authority & can confirm that there are some people who’ve passed their test but still can’t drive. Old & young alike.
I’m just pleased my young passengers can’t hear me muttering under my mask. 🥸
The vehicle you got your figures from was a 1997 Nissan Micra.
A nuance that ignores the point. But also, a 1997 car is probably more representative of the car most people on the road took their test in than a 2022 car?
Was it an STWer who wrote up their experience of being paralyzed after being hit by a big SUV pulling out of a junction whilst he was passing? It had the terrifying line attributed to the police officer that attended "those Range Rovers(?) don't have great visibility over the bonnet" excusing the drivers incompetence whilst he was lying in the middle of the road (words to that effect anyway).
So yes, I do agree that there should have been license categories at 1ton/2ton/3.5t and perhaps a limit of bhp/ton in each category like the motorbike test.
I've got a full bike license, I'm unconvinced there's any reason anyone should not do the DAS option, it's not harder except the bikes a bit heavier which makes mod1 a bit harder and you have to learn to ride with a bit more conviction to get it into corners. If you could pass a test on a 125 you could pass it on a 650. IMO the categories are just there to keep kids with too much bravery and not enough experience alive.
The difference between the Seat Arosa I took my test in and a Merc Sprinter* on the other hand is night and day.
*or even the average SUV these days.
A nuance that ignores the point. But also, a 1997 car is probably more representative of the car most people on the road took their test in than a 2022 car?
Well no because the conversation at that point in the thread was about people passing their test in a Nissan Micra then getting into an SUV/4x4 type high-powered car without further training and I don't think many people in 2022 will take their test in a 1997 Micra. Or are we now moving on to arguing about people that passed their driving tests in 1997 and whether or not they now drive fast cars into walls and trees and people because, after 25 years of driving experience, they still haven't learned how to drive high-powered cars because they haven't had additional training?
her instructor’s car had a hill start function, so she was never taught how to do a real hill start.
Ditto!
The main route to our road involves turning right off a busy main road on a hill. The first time my daughter tried it in my (clockwork) car, we saw the whites of the driver behind's eyes in the rear view mirror as she expected the car to hold when she took her foot off the brake. Nothing at all from her instructor on how to use the handbrake for a hill start.