[Snowball]

In today's RAC website "Motoring News", there is an article called, Road crash investigations 'flawed.
It cites that investigation branches exist for accidents involving air, rail, and water in the UK, but none exists for UK roads. This despite the total over an 11-year period is 504 for air, rail and water, yet 36,781 for UK roads.

It goes on to say that the police priorities are based on finding out who is to blame, rather than investigating the cause. This is not surprising, because that is what the police are for; to uphold the law, which means bringing charges where appropriate.
The police do investigate up to a point, but their resources do not provide for, or allow, extended investigation beyond satisfying themselves regarding the legal position of those involved in the accident.

I fully agree that some investigative body, specifically tasked to use the information to reduce/prevent accidents, certainly seems necessary. But, if you consider the situation in detail, the logistics are truly formidable.
For air, rail and sea, the operating regimes are more strictly controlled, the areas of operation are confined to known corridors, the operating vehicles and personnel are constantly tracked, and the number of vehicles comparitively small.

By comparison, in a road crash, contributary vehicles may not actually collide, and simply vanish from the scene unrecorded. At the scene itself, events leading up to a road crash can be due to a wide range of causes, and any witness evidence will very often be either biased towards self-defence by those involved, or unreliable opinions by witnesses, who may well have noticed nothing leading up to the crash; and only having a state of awareness after the crash.

Add to this the frightening number of illegal drivers, who do not even consider normal traffic behavioural requirements, and the drivers who have knowingly broken a rule but simply lie about it, and the establishment of useful facts are significantly difficult to assemble.
This is why I personally believe such a body is unlikely to come into being.

[Rolebama]

I believe that such a system would not be wanted by the manufacturers. There have been many suspicions about manufacturing defects contributing to accidents over the years, and yet when have you ever heard of a vehicle being 'banned'. To put a new twist on an old adage: Money talks, safety walks!

[wagolynn]

There is software available that can work backwards from the damage inflicted to vehicles. This then works out the relative direction and velocity of the bodies involved. It uses data from the manufactures as to how the vehicle body behaves in a crash. This is a good starting point.

It is logical to use the Police (even if it needs more) as they should attend the scene any way if only to control the traffic. They do in fact, as you point out, do a relatively crude investigation but just to see if they can log it as a cleared up crime.

Every incident is a learning opportunity, unfortunately we throw it away. We don’t need to learn anything about road safety; we know the answer; if only we could have the red flag back.

Rolebalma is correct in the sense that no one wants to know because the outcome may cost money. In a short-sighted way it’s cheaper to leave the problem and let people get killed.

Who or what are illegal drivers?

[Rolebama]

To my way of thinking, an illegal driver is one who does not have all relevant paperwork allowing them to drive, or one who is driving an unroadworthy vehicle.
*Relevant paperwork would include a valid Driving License to which they are entitled, showing their entitlement to drive the class of vehicle involved, a valid VED for the vehicle, a valid insurance certificate covering their use of the vehicle, and a valid and current MOT if required for the vehicle. Roadworthy is the condition whereby they comply with all laws and statutes relevant to the vehicle and its use on the road.*

[Snowball]

The real problem, wagolynn, is this. All the software technology can only help to determine what happens/what has happened to the the vehicles and people in a crash. They can devise vehicle and road furniture technology to obtain optimum reduction of injuries that result from crashes. But what they cannot achieve is an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the conditions immediately prior to the crash, even though it was those conditions which caused it.
This is because the scene prior to the crash is composed of numerous vehicles and people in continual and random movement. Any one of them can make a move that will eventually cause a crash, but it is unlikely that anyone will see the exact start of the sequence that caused it. Added to this is, as previously stated, the unreliability of witnesses and involved drivers; self-defence often overruling actual truth.
Remember, the topic is "how do we stop the carnage?"; not reduce it, which is what current research addresses.

Illegal drivers: I am surprised that you don't know what these are. We are all paying around an additional £30 per year on our premiums because of these people, and the Motor Insurance Bureau estimates that they are responsible for the injuries of three people an hour on our roads.

[Rolebama]

I think it is the human condition. As long as humans drive motor cars, there will be deaths on the road. Most collisions are caused by a misjudgment. Speed of others and themselves, distances, tyre adhesion, braking capabilities and road surface conditions all play a part, and come down to basic physics which could be taught in schools. Then there is the ability to 'read the road' which I see on a daily basis as being virtually non-existent. There is also now just too much unnecessary signage on the roadside, which causes distractions to drivers. Impending roadwork signs which are almost impossible to read at a glance, mandatory and advisory road signs being overshadowed by signposts to tourist attractions, etc etc. Now mix this with the 'I am not responsible for my actions' attitude which seems all too commonplace today, and we have a perfect mix just waiting for innocent lives to be lost. It is not just a matter of education, but a change of mind-set in both motorists and those responsible for the road system which would be needed to reduce the carnage.

[wagolynn]

Hi snowball I understand what you are saying. But we have arrived at this point by not understanding, in a scientific sense, what is the root cause. There are a lot of silly assumptions flying about, each perpetuated by differing factions all with an axe to grind. As has already been discussed, vehicles and driving them are emotive subjects. But good decisions are never made based on emotions; they have to be made on real facts. It is all too easy to put a lot of effort into the wrong problem.

The software, where it has been used, comes up with a range of probabilities. These are then used to confirm or otherwise statements. In any field, where there are unknowns the result should, and truthfully, can only be expressed as a probability. E.g. A breathalyser or a blood test can only draw the conclusion that someone has probably been drinking. Not as is assumed, they have been drinking. Whatever, with some facts (probability known) sensible decisions could be made, aimed at correcting whatever the problem might be.

I was puzzled by illegal drivers. Were we talking about; Uninsured drivers, but hold a licence. Un-licensed drivers. Drivers of un-taxed vehicles. Or so called joy-riders. To me they are all different problems, requiring different solutions. Or taken to the extreme; are we thinking of drivers who have accidently or otherwise broken the law?

[Snowball]

That's pretty much how I would sum it up, Rolebama, with probably an additional comment that there seems to be an impatient attitude that says "I must get to where I am going as fast as possible, and to Hell with any consideration for anyone else on the road".

Far from criticising the vehicle manufacturers and those bodies who make a genuine effort to build safe vehicles and roads, I could understand them seeing the futility in their efforts when drivers insist on using up the safety margins gained, by simply putting their foot down for ever greater speeds.

Is one of the prime reasons for the rising accident rate simply due to faster roads making it easier for drivers to exceed their true driving capabilities?

[wagolynn]

I heartily agree with all you have said Rolebalmer. (Indecently, some considerable time ago it was scientifically proven that drivers are visually overloaded.) From all that I deduce that punishment can never work. Would you punish someone for tripping over a loose rug? Re-training is the best solution to events caused by failing in driving ability.

The last company I worked for was supposed to arrange for every driver to have a day’s driving instruction; this degenerated into anyone that had damaged a vehicle. Talking to the drivers who did get the training, they were much more defensive in their driving style, were more aware of hazards, most of which they said they had not seen as hazards before. All simple things, like it is instinctive to speed up when a vehicle starts to overtake therefore you have to actively suppress it. There was a lot of car ‘body language’ information.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I was puzzled by illegal drivers. Were we talking about; Uninsured drivers, but hold a licence. Un-licensed drivers. Drivers of un-taxed vehicles. Or so called joy-riders.

I would say each and ever one of them are illegal drivers because either they don't have the paperwork to drive, full stop, or they do have a licence but they lack other paperwork which is mandatory e.g. insurance, tax, MOT. I think the common solution to all of them is get them off our roads for good.

I wouldn't call someone who has unintentionally let their car get up to 71mph on a motorway an 'illegal' driver. I would use the term to descibe people who are fully aware that they should not be on the road because they lack one (or usually) several legal requirements as listed above.

[Rolebama]

One of the most useful sessions I ever took part in was whilst working for the AA. I, and a few other Patrols spent five days with Motorway Police, Firemen, Ambulance Drivers and Motorway clean-up crews. We visited each other's Depots and Control Centres, and spent a lot of time basically sitting around talking about various events and incidents we had witnessed or been involved in. We learnt how each of us uses their equipment and what we did in terms of trying to make our 'work sites' safe for ourselves and other road users. We also had the opportunity of visiting each other's 'black museums' consisting of photos and car parts collected after collisions. Unfortunately, those that paid for these sessions decided there was no monetary gain in them, so they were left to fade away. If only these sessions could be taken to the motoring public.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

(1)But we have arrived at this point by not understanding, in a scientific sense, what is the root cause.

E.g. (2)A breathalyser or a blood test can only draw the conclusion that someone has probably been drinking.

(3)sensible decisions could be made, aimed at correcting whatever the problem might be.

(4)I was puzzled by illegal drivers. Were we talking about; Uninsured drivers, but hold a licence. Un-licensed drivers. Drivers of un-taxed vehicles. Or so called joy-riders. To me they are all different problems, requiring different solutions.

To put the situation into a logical perspective, take my own case.
(1)This April, after more than 50 years of driving, I was waiting on a roundabout for traffic to clear from my right. During that period of (what, 15 to 20 seconds?) a hit-and-run driver ran into the rear of my vehicle.
It is not possible to interpret this incident by any form of "scientific sense", or to use the results of the incident to "scientifically" deduce the root cause.

(2) Not any more. If the police are called to a motoring incident, breathalising all involved drivers is mandatory. (My test was ZERO, btw)

(3) Wrong. No sensible decision is possible to prevent this happening again; to me or anyone else. This is because illegal drivers are not driven by "sensible decisions". They act as they wish at any time which suits them.

(4) An illegal driver is anyone driving a motor vehicle who, in law, has no right to do so, and would be prosecuted if stopped by a police officer.
It doesn't even matter if they were driving the vehicle correctly. For example, even with 55 years of driving, if I failed to renew my insurance, I would also be an illegal driver.

And they are not different. They are all a dangerous threat to the safety of other lives on the road.
(a) if they have no tax/MoT it is because the vehicle is probably unroadworthy.
(b) if they have no driving licence, it is most likely they are incapable of driving a vehicle correctly; and may have been proved so by reason of a ban.
(c) if they have no insurance; well, without the other documentation it would probably be invalid anyhow, even if they could obtain it.
(d) hit-and-run. Aside from vehicle theft, almost certainly gulty of one or more of the above offences.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I would say each and ever one of them are illegal drivers because either they don't have the paperwork to drive, full stop, or they do have a licence but they lack other paperwork which is mandatory e.g. insurance, tax, MOT. I think the common solution to all of them is get them off our roads for good.

.

But if we are thinking about road safety I can see that some are dangerous. The rest are just an irritant! Not really anything to do with road safety, are they?

What if we insured the person not the car? Then you cannot have a driving licence unless you have insurance. Then we have a card swipe type unit on the filler of each car that will only open in response to a valid card. The swipe unit could emit a warning as the insurance approaches run out date. A new card to be sent by the insurer.

[Rolebama]

I do not accept that illegal drivers are not dangerous. You only have to watch the current batch of Police progs on TV to see that they are usually the ones that end up involved in high-speed pursuits.
Must admit that with the amount of breakdowns and problems caused by electronic gadgets and devices on cars, I would most definitely be against adding more.
Locally, we now have ANPR cars, PCSOs and Parking Wardens. How about getting rid of them and putting the money into the Police and having a better Police presence on the road. The technology is currently available whereby we could link 'safety' cameras to the network and put ANPR on them. Then put one on every street corner and motorway junction. This would enable tracking of an illegal vehicle so it could be intercepted by Police and put off the road.
As to insuring the person, I am not quite sure that isn't what I am already paying for. After all, at the moment if I use someone else's uninsured car and park it at the roadside, the minute I get out it is considered uninsured, and liable to be impounded and crushed.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I do not accept that illegal drivers are not dangerous. You only have to watch the current batch of Police progs on TV to see that they are usually the ones that end up involved in high-speed pursuits.

Don’t forget that what you see are the edited high lights. A chase of a fully documented car and driver will end on the cutting room floor against a chase with a criminal at the wheel.
What bothers me about that stuff is the police are enjoying it! I would question the need to ever chase; but I can understand the psychology of the hunter and the hunted, both will get a major buzz.
Agreed though, about more police about; on the road and in the streets.

The insurance/licence thing: Yes I suppose another thing to go wrong.:o

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

But if we are thinking about road safety I can see that some are dangerous. The rest are just an irritant! Not really anything to do with road safety, are they?

I am sorry, but I think this statement would be vehementally refuted by all police and road safety bodies.
An illegal driver is on the road because, either (a)the vehicle is not roadworthy and therefore would not qualify for the issue of lawful documentation, or (b)the driver is incapable of/not bothered about qualifying for a driving licence, or (c)cannot afford to buy and run a vehicle, or (d)a combination of all these reasons.

Never even assume that one of these drivers is safe.
You can be absolutely certain that, when involved in a collision, every one of them will run (unless incapable due to injury). Also consider that, as in our case, the hit-and-run vermin (for want of a worse description) did not even think that an injured victim could be in need of urgent medical aid.
And further consider that, in a lonely situation, late at night, that person would still run without concern for any injured victim (remeber the young boy recently left dying in Bristol?).
Sounds emotive? Yes, we all have the right to be furious that these mobile idiots are roaming our roads. Perhaps, the sooner Joe Public finds a way to exert pressure on the politicians that hurts, the sooner we can get around to cleaning up our roads.
I'm sorry, wagolynn, but your apparent passive acceptance that any illegal driver could be considered as not being a threat to road safety has touched a nerve that I think will be shared by most of the law-abiding public.

Regards, Snowball.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball.
Re your post #12 on this thread.

As far as I could work out from another thread re-your rear ender that the police could not be bothered to collect all evidence did they not ‘speculate’ that the other driver was uninsured? This was the point I was trying to make; so much to do with road safety is speculation, no one looks for the facts. If the police could have been bothered to check, they could have issued a statement to your insurers that you were not to blame (a friend of mine was saved loss of no claims by this).

Item 2 – It should be unusual to get a true zero in a breathalyser, this is the argument for the lower limit. But what I was referring to is a positive result means a high probability there has been drink taken, as my Irish friends say, but it is not 100% cast iron solid.

Item 3 – Agreed if all the evidence adds up to what has been assumed.

Item 4 – Again I do not see how we can know that the lack of documents was the cause of an accident; I can see how it might cause someone to run away though.

I was taught early in my industrial/management life; before you deploy money and people collect all the evidence so you solve the underlying problem not a symptom. I saw so many organisations solving symptoms at great expense, only to have the problem re-emerge.

[Tony Aston]

I think the root cause is the willingness to accept death caused by driving or riding.

The punishment of a driver causing death appears to be much less than other crimes. A mother crossing a dual carriageway and killing 4 people gets 2 years imprisonment; somebody involved in fraud or robbery gets many years!

The dreaded T word has again been mentioned. If we Trained drivers effectively before the could drive solo, I am sure this woud be of benefit.

Remove the death by dangerous or careless driving charges and replace it with death by driving; make people think about their actions

I will not continue as this becomes very emotive for me!

Tony

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Hi Snowball.
Re your post #12 on this thread.

As far as I could work out from another thread re-your rear ender that the police could not be bothered to collect all evidence did they not ‘speculate’ that the other driver was uninsured?

Item 2 – It should be unusual to get a true zero in a breathalyser, this is the argument for the lower limit.

Item 3 – Agreed if all the evidence adds up to what has been assumed.

Item 4 – Again I do not see how we can know that the lack of documents was the cause of an accident; I can see how it might cause someone to run away though.

(1) I did not say the police were not bothered. Regarding speculation about insurance, there have been instances where the valid insurance has not appeared on the relevant data base. Caution in offering comment on this would seem sensible.

The police have since required me to complete a 4-page statement to assist their investigations. If ththis hit-and-run driver is a traveller with no fixed abode, and the vehicle not registered to him, it is patently obvious that the police do have a problem in finding him.

(2) I understand that the lower limit is to allow for someone who may still be showing signs of alcohol even though they have gone a considerable time since drinking, and the lower limit currently being regardedas an acceptable limit.
Why should it be unusual for a ZERO limit to show if there is no alcohol in the body? Can you imagine the public furore if a breathaliser showed any alcohol content in a total abstainer?

(3) For "assumed", read considered opinion,

(4) I think it can be taken as certain that his documentation is non-existent. Anyone legally entitled to drive has no reason to run; it would only put a traceable driver in a worse position. To discount the link between illegal drivers and road accidents would be extremely naive; the MIB have stated quite clearly that these people cause injuries to 3 people per hour on UK roads.

With crimes not related to driving, think how many times the appehension of a small group of criminals has cleared up a massive backlog of unsolved crimes in an area. There is every reason to believe that eliminating the illegal drivers would have a similar effect in cleaning up our roads.

There will always be accidents, of course, but the untraceable drivers are the ones most likely to be a constant danger during the whole time they are behind the wheel. To deny this fact would be tantamount to saying that we should concentrate on the legitimate drivers, and leave the illegal ones to continue to break the law.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball,

1 – But the thread read as though the police were not bothering to get the registered owners name and address.

2 – There are various reasons why the human body will produce alcohol. That is why there have to be lower limits. If I remember correctly it is possible to be in the fail zone and still have not consumed alcohol, I am not sure what the condition is called but some people cannot metabolise the alcohol produced by the human body.

3 – Choice of words, I used assumed to highlight, all possibilities had not been considered.

4 – I had to take a work college back to the scene of a crash because he was, at that stage a fully documented jabbering idiot, he had panicked it was his first ding. It turned out to be not his fault!

All I am attempting to point out is we should try, in every situation, to get at the facts in an effort to understand what happened and why. OK a shunt up the rear at a roundabout is not too surprising (that’s not to say it is not upsetting) but it happens frequently. One sensible conclusion from that could well be that roundabouts would be better replaced by traffic lights. This probable holds true at high traffic density but not at low density. But this choice should not be considered without first collecting the facts.

Opps before we start discussing roundabouts perhaps I should explain. In my opinion driving will always be safer if the choice is black and white red/green it gets dangerous when there is a maybe involved.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Hi Snowball,

1 – But the thread read as though the police were not bothering to get the registered owners name and address.

I did not say the police were not bothered. I said that the police officer at the scene indicated, from his PNC check, that the situation did show that tracing the hit-and-run driver might prove difficult. Subject to investigation, any one of several reasons could make this a problem.

2 – There are various reasons why the human body will produce alcohol.

I can understand alcohol-related drugs causing a reading on a breathaliser, but I have never heard of the human body having the ability to produce alcohol.

3 – Choice of words, I used assumed to highlight, all possibilities had not been considered.

And that is where many considered opinions end; just considered opinions, because some events cannot later be reconstructed with any degree of certainty. For example, the police cannot reconstruct any idea of what the hit-and-run driver was doing prior to colliding with my vehicle.

4 – I had to take a work college back to the scene of a crash because he was, at that stage a fully documented jabbering idiot, he had panicked it was his first ding. It turned out to be not his fault!

Although obviously shaken up, I was in perfect control of my faculties. I had to calm my wife, and she was mortified that our car was less than 2 months old. I remember telling her, "it's just a car, at least we are not injured".
And the attending police officer did say that I had clearly done nothing wrong.

All I am attempting to point out is we should try, in every situation, to get at the facts in an effort to understand what happened and why. OK a shunt up the rear at a roundabout is not too surprising (that’s not to say it is not upsetting) but it happens frequently.

It was not "a shunt up the rear". I had been waiting for at least 3, possibly 4, cars to clear the rounabout from my right. When I first stopped, the offending car was nowhere in sight. And the reason why he banged into me will always be conjecture.

One sensible conclusion from that could well be that roundabouts would be better replaced by traffic lights.

Not true. We have two roundabouts in close proximity at Leicester's Fosse Park; one is light controlled and one is not. They are both subject to a 50 mph speed limit. Accidents happen at both roundabouts; the problem here is speed. In France, all roundabouts are limited to a maximum speed of 50 kph (30 mph).

One sensible conclusion is to (a) get all the illegal drivers off the roads, and (b) all legitimate drivers to show less aggressive driving and more patience.

Opps before we start discussing roundabouts perhaps I should explain. In my opinion driving will always be safer if the choice is black and white red/green it gets dangerous when there is a maybe involved.

I'm afraid that I don't understand where you are going with this last paragraph.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I'm afraid that I don't understand where you are going with this last paragraph.

Hello Snowball,
1 – I meant reading the thread not your post. The way the thread developed made it look as though the police were not going to trace the owner. There were lots of suggestions on how you might do this. I am not sure they would have worked but they were there.

2 – The most obvious way of producing alcohol is if high sugar content fruit is delayed in transit through the body. To a much lesser extent overripe (e.g. rotting has started) fruit will create a small amount in normal transit. There are other more complex ways as well. There are people who just cannot metabolise alcohol at all or extremely slowly. This is why we have a lower limit not zero.

3 – I am back to a full investigation theme. In your case yes it is ongoing and it is probable that it will not get anywhere, but every incident deserves full investigation to see if society can learn anything that may help to prevent it happening again. You have paid your taxes you deserve the best possible attention anyway.

4 – No this was not you. A work colleague phoned me and said he had panicked and left the scene of an accident. When I got to him (I was about 10 miles away) he was not making sense. I convinced him to go back and we sorted it out. The point being; some people react very differently to a crash. Just another example of what might motivate people to run away. I think, I understand how you felt at the time. I also took a brand new car on holiday in the lakes and got rear-ended so hard our car was damaged at both ends. The driver had been held up getting off the ferry, dads car (I think), girlfriend in car, we were the end of a queue stopped by a tractor just around a blind corner. I saw him before he hit, but I could not move. After he tried to reverse but another car came around the bend and ended up across the road blocking his path, he may have just been trying to get his car out of our boot. Of course he said has brakes had failed.........

Agreed unless he is caught and decides to tell the truth we/you will never know how or why.

Roundabout: A major holiday route skirts the town here; it has full time T/lights now. Locals have little trouble but the holiday traffic frequently crash. As far as I can see the problem is that the road signs do not make it clear there are T/lights on the roundabout.

Black and white: I am suggesting that traffic lights comply with the basic safety rules (anywhere not just driving) ‘maybe’ situations are dangerous yes or no are safe. Traffic lights are unambiguous Red is stop green is go. I am told by people who have driven where T/L are without amber it is much better. My safety training says it should be.

Re Illegal drivers: In my view – that is all my view– from what I have learned of human nature if everyone obeyed the law to the letter we would still have crashes. Because the roads are full of humans each making their own choices. Each being distracted by all the road safety posters, other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, unpaid bills, music, being late for work and so on.
Sorry it’s so long

[Snowball]

I think we all agree that there will always be an incidence of accidents, simply because of the human element. But I also believe that, if all drivers obeyed the Highway Code to the letter, strictly observed speed limit and lowered their speed still futher in adverse circumstances, and drove with more patience, then the accident rates would both fall, and be less severe.

Regarding hit-and-run drivers, after more than 55 years of driving, this is the first time I have been involved in such an incident.
The experience is totally different to an accident where everyone involved exchanges details. The feeling is one of having suffered abuse, and I would imagine it to be similar to being mugged.
So, I hope I will be forgiven for my views that illegal drivers should suffer the most extreme punishment allowable in law.

Regards, Snowball.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I think we all agree that there will always be an incidence of accidents, simply because of the human element. But I also believe that, if all drivers obeyed the Highway Code to the letter, strictly observed speed limit and lowered their speed still futher in adverse circumstances, and drove with more patience, then the accident rates would both fall, and be less severe.

Regarding hit-and-run drivers, after more than 55 years of driving, this is the first time I have been involved in such an incident.
The experience is totally different to an accident where everyone involved exchanges details. The feeling is one of having suffered abuse, and I would imagine it to be similar to being mugged.
So, I hope I will be forgiven for my views that illegal drivers should suffer the most extreme punishment allowable in law.

Regards, Snowball.

Hello again Snowball,

Re hit and run. Yes I could imagine, at least where details are exchanged you get a sort of closure. I think you get to see that the other party is human, even if they huff and puff sometimes. But the exchange of details usually calms everyone down.

You have nothing to be forgiven for, you are entitled to your views, we may have different views on how to make things better but we do want them to get better. It is frustrating to see the needles human suffering and be unable to act. At least swapping opinions keeps the gray matter going.....:)

Did I notice on one thread that you are past three score and ten? If so, how does it all work in practice as regards continuing to drive? As I am fast approaching that point, in months not years. Do they send forms or do I have to start proceedings?

If I am wrong about your age I apologise.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Hello again Snowball,


Did I notice on one thread that you are past three score and ten? If so, how does it all work in practice as regards continuing to drive? As I am fast approaching that point, in months not years. Do they send forms or do I have to start proceedings?

If I am wrong about your age I apologise.

No need to apologise, wagolynn.
Yes, you are right about my age; nearly 74 to be precise.
Re: continuing to drive. We are caravanners, and I still tow my van. Last year, I tugged it around France for 7 weeks, going as far down as near to the Pyrenees.
From 70, you are limited to 3,500kg gross vehicle weight, and have to reapply for your licence every 3 years. But there is no fee, and it is straightforward.
If you passed your test before 1997, make sure you claim for the B+E on your licence. It gives you a bit more scope if you tow a trailer; and is essential for me as a caravanner.
I still drive around 9,000 miles per year, and deliberately drive during peak hours on a regular basis to ensure that I don't lose my ability to deal with heavy traffic conditions. This is why I oppose congestion charging. It could develop into a lot of drivers (retired and low paid) avoiding peak times due to financial constraints, and possibly lead to another road safety problem; being the risk of a group of drivers not retaining the ability to deal with traffic if they are forced by circumstances to drive at a peak time.

Regards, Snowball.

[emogoldup]

What about those who disregard others by driving with lights that blind others. The I am all right Jack type. Yes I am an ilder safe driver with as far as I ca estimate a possible 3m miles at least 0.5m in one older Volvo.
Pudlog

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by emogoldup

What about those who disregard others by driving with lights that blind others. The I am all right Jack type. Yes I am an ilder safe driver with as far as I ca estimate a possible 3m miles at least 0.5m in one older Volvo.
Pudlog

Some of the worst offenders are those who wait at the kerb after dark, facing the wrong way and with their headlights blazing. Even on dipped lights, they still blind oncoming drivers. In our area, we find taxi drivers seem to be regular offenders. Any driver with half a brain would realise that he/she should switch the headlights off until ready to move off. There is also the added stupidity that, should anyone be getting into or out of the car's lefthand doors, the dazzle of the lights can prevent an oncoming driver from seeing that a door is actually open.

Instead of the repeatedly pointless TV police chases, which will not change the behaviour of that section of miscreants, wouldn't a regularly transmitted programme of driving do's and dont's be more practical?

I'd put sudden two-minute bursts of road safety propaganda in the middle of popular programmes, especially sport related ones; that's where the large audiences gather.

Hmm. now I am going to get it, I think!

Regards, Snowball.

[Rolebama]

Snowball, I agree entirely with the idea of Public Information Films. I remember they used to appear quite regularly on BBC years ago. The current ones about looking out for motorcyclists and the drink-driving ones do not seem to have the same impact somehow.

[wagolynn]

Somewhere on the goggling box I remember seeing some short (10mins) programs full of tips about DIY. Something similar could be done about driving, one aspect at a time. Not the usual childish stuff more at the IAM level. Of course television program producers insist that viewers concentration span is measured in seconds, consequently most factual programs are a bit pointless.

The BBC had one program where viewers complained about a victims driving. The victim was filmed driving usually hamming up the fault , then the ‘entertainment’ and ‘drama’ kicked in, there would be a film about the victim’s family involved in an accident caused by the victim. Lots of hospital drama type makeup etc. Finally victim promises to change his/her ways, crying if possible. The driving fault was lost in the drama. It was all very much do not do, rather than, try this because it is better/safer with a demonstration of real coaching taking place. Don’t do that do this is pointless most people need coaching. We know that humans can run a mile in under 4 mins but we would not expect anyone to do it without training and coaching.

[Snowball]

The greatest single problem is, where driving is concerned, for some unfathomable reason many people, once they get behind the wheel, seem to regard breaking the rules to be more normal than in any other theatre of human behaviour.

All this in spite of the well documented reports of tragic results from this insane behaviour.

Just how do you start to coach someone to drive correctly, when they are already aware of all the requirements of the Highway Code, and have proven that they can handle the vehicle competently?

Can anyone truthfully answer the question,"why does a driver who passes with flying colours whilst under tutorship and test examination, almost immediately go onto the roads and ignore all his/her training?"

Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Snowball.