LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 http://www.directline.com/about_us/driving-test-press-release.htm Learning to drive on a motorway forces you to be aware of other road users, you also get to learn about speed & road discipline and about spacial awareness.. I think it makes you a better driver...the driving test should also include skid pan training... A Dash 7 pilot wouldn't be allowed to fly a 737 until he'd passed the relevant courses....another strange analogy... If I have not misinterpreted you, you are saying that people who have not passed a test to drive on motorways are incapable of driving on any roads, irrespective of whether they will ever travel on motorways. Just because a motorway exists, does not mean you should have to use it, and their invention does not make you any less able to drive on B roads. I would happily install a test for motorway competence, but I would not make motorway competence a prerequisite for holding a license Glancing at the direct line article, I would be more keen for a test on rural competence, as a horse owner who has lost animals due to speeding drivers and motorcyclists I am very aware of idiots on the road. It is not a pretty sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 If I have not misinterpreted you, you are saying that people who have not passed a test to drive on motorways are incapable of driving on any roads, irrespective of whether they will ever travel on motorways. Just because a motorway exists, does not mean you should have to use it, and their invention does not make you any less able to drive on B roads. I would happily install a test for motorway competence, but I would not make motorway competence a prerequisite for holding a license Glancing at the direct line article, I would be more keen for a test on rural competence, as a horse owner who has lost animals due to speeding drivers and motorcyclists I am very aware of idiots on the road. It is not a pretty sight. No, I didn't say that...I believe that knowledge of motorway driving makes you a better driver..why do insurance companies offer lower premiums to those who have passed the pass plus (which is mainly motorway driving)? Should motorway driving become part of the driving test? yes, it should IMHO... Rural competence is also vital...I live in a fairly rural area, and I see idiots on the road all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 No, I didn't say that...I believe that knowledge of motorway driving makes you a better driver..why do insurance companies offer lower premiums to those who have passed the pass plus (which is mainly motorway driving)? Presumably, because knowledge of motorway driving makes you a better driver if you venture onto motorways. I would have no problem with making a test for motorway proficiency a prerequisite for being allowed to venture on a motorway, for everyone. I just can't see the need to prove you can cope with a motorway if you never deal with motorway conditions. So restrict oldies to B roads and single lane A roads. By all means, test their proficiency for those roads too, but that would be the same test for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwestsmith2 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Perhaps some of the young and old need their brains tested YOUNG OLD The OLD one just didn't have beacons Wrong way on an unrestricted dual carriageway at night with no insurance on a Class 3 with flashing amber beacons would be legal, I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 On the automatic gearbox issue, I wish manufacturers would design one with a feature whereby whenever the car comes to a total halt, the gearbox is automatically placed into neutral and you have to move it back into drive before the car will go again. An American policeman friend tells me that you wouldn't believe the number of rear-end shunts caused by someone getting distracted in a traffic jam or at the lights with the gearbox in drive mode and the car held still on the footbrake alone. They then let their foot off the footbrake as the result of some distraction or other, the car creeps forward and rogers the one in front of it. That would be my big fear with automatics and older drivers. Not quite that, but I'm currently driving (reluctantly! it's intended for my nervous daughter) a Nissan Micra CVT automatic. Unlike "proper" automatics it's got no creep - whe you're stopped you stay stopped till you press the accelerator. I actually find this quite irritating, but what I REALLY don't like is that unlike proper automatics it will roll backwards on hills if you taker your foot off the brake. This nearly caught me out first time I drove it - fortunately no-one was behind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchbux Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The only issue I have with that are those who could potentially lose their livelihoods if they failed an arbitrary test, say in their 30s or 40s...it would also be a administrative nightmare, with what, 30 millions drivers on the road... For me, if you cannot navigate all roads (single lane, dual carriageway or motorways) then you shouldn't be on the road...a lot of drivers have no confidence behind the wheel, and its these drivers that can be the most dangerous... It would also be a good revenue raiser, and a reminder to everyone that a licence is an earnt priviledge, not a right. I wouldn't want to see anyone lose their licence on the basis of one bad test. Basic competency test, one retest if you fail, fail again full test. My basic test would include highway code questions, as a large percentage of the population, me included, passed their test in the days when you got three random questions thrown at you at the end of your driving test. How many have picked up a copy of the highway code since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Add up all the costs of ownership and see if taxis would work out cheaper. Sounds so easy and logical, doesn't it? When my mother gave up her car (voluntarily) at about 80, I kept telling her how many taxis she'd be able to take for what she'd save on running it. In practice I don't think she ever took even one, though she could have afforded to. IMO it's a generation-mindset thing - taxis are an extravagance you simply don't indulge in twice, or even once a week. She wasn't unnecessarily frugal in other respects, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It would also be a good revenue raiser, and a reminder to everyone that a licence is an earnt priviledge, not a right. I get tired of the anti-car brigade, most of whom live in affluent parts of London and can afford to take taxis everywhere anyway, trotting out this line. They seem to regard a driving licence as effectively the same thing as a private pilot's licence, a sporting gun licence etc. etc. - in other words, the right to undertake a leisure activity you could do perfectly well without. If you live in a part of the country with poor, dangerous or non-existent public transport, the ability to drive is a basic necessity. Like the ability to walk the streets without being locked up in jail, it is a right granted to anyone who can display the level of competence needed to pass the test. After that, it can only be taken away if you abuse that right, or your physical or mental condition becomes such that you can no longer drive to an acceptable level of safety. We must be constantly vigilant for socialist control freaks who are constantly trying to restrict and remove the right to drive even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I get tired of the anti-car brigade, most of whom live in affluent parts of London and can afford to take taxis everywhere anyway, trotting out this line. They seem to regard a driving licence as effectively the same thing as a private pilot's licence, a sporting gun licence etc. etc. - in other words, the right to undertake a leisure activity you could do perfectly well without. If you live in a part of the country with poor, dangerous or non-existent public transport, the ability to drive is a basic necessity. Like the ability to walk the streets without being locked up in jail, it is a right granted to anyone who can display the level of competence needed to pass the test. After that, it can only be taken away if you abuse that right, or your physical or mental condition becomes such that you can no longer drive to an acceptable level of safety. We must be constantly vigilant for socialist control freaks who are constantly trying to restrict and remove the right to drive even further. Yes that is the point I think !! Without a test in place how exactly do you know if these aspects of driving have fallen to unacceptable levels or not ? Or do we just trust older people to be honest and make their minds up for themselves ? Because being perfectly honest the older generation can be some of the most stubborn buggers about !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchbux Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Yes that is the point I think !! Without a test in place how exactly do you know if these aspects of driving have fallen to unacceptable levels or not ? Or do we just trust older people to be honest and make their minds up for themselves ? Because being perfectly honest the older generation can be some of the most stubborn buggers about !! That's exactly my point. AB throws out the same ad-hom at me every time the subject comes up. I'm far from anti-car, and you'd have to pay me to live in London, or any other city for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 AB throws out the same ad-hom at me every time the subject comes up. I'm far from anti-car, and you'd have to pay me to live in London, or any other city for that matter. It wasn't intended to be ad hom. I just get irritated at the 'driving is a privilege, not a right' mantra that the political left use repeatedly as a justification for placing ever increasing restrictions and tariffs on an activity which, for most people who live outside the boundaries of the M25, is to all intents and purposes non-discretionary. The left is motivated primarily by the desire to exercise power and control over other people, and claiming the power to grant or remove a privilege in respect of driving is one of the many insidious manifestations of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It wasn't intended to be ad hom. I just get irritated at the 'driving is a privilege, not a right' mantra that the political left use repeatedly as a justification for placing ever increasing restrictions and tariffs on an activity which, for most people who live outside the boundaries of the M25, is to all intents and purposes non-discretionary. The left is motivated primarily by the desire to exercise power and control over other people, and claiming the power to grant or remove a privilege in respect of driving is one of the many insidious manifestations of that. My idea of driving being a 'privilige' is down to the fact I don't really want other people who can't drive properly running over my skull. Thats about it really. And if someone's granny thinks she can drive - but under test conditions - has lost a fair whack of her abilities ? Then I couldn't give a ****** whether she lives up the end of some country lane or not. Exactly the same logic can be said to those driving to the local boozer and trying to get home to their country manor after having 5 pints. You cannot pick and choose. And this goes for me when I am whatever age as well. I don't think it is unreasonable. If an old person who cant see or hear properly and has poor reactions is allowed to drive ? Then I should be allowed to drink drive. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the person we may 'accidentally' run over and crush their skull. I can't believe people see this debate as 'anti driving' ?! It is ******ing insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattW Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 As a Nissan owner I'll be biased and say a Micra supermini or the smaller Pixo city car. Wouth also check out the Kia Picanto and Fiat Panda too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Bit of a strange analogy, but there you go... I've seen many a driver, especially on minor roads doing 30 in a 40 or 50...you see ppl trying to overtake, but often can't because a lot of these drivers hog the road - they sort of drift into the middle...they are generally poor drivers with little awareness of other road users... Though to be fair to them doing 30 in a 50 is not dangerous. Frustrating for the person behind perhaps, that that's their tough shit. If they can't overtake safely, then don't. My mum is not the best driver in the world, she is slow and takes time to make her mind up at junctions - but she is a hell of a lot safer then the stupid 30 year old who went into the back of her while piloting his BMW repmobile. "She didn't need to stop at the roundabout, it was clear" was his excuse. Plod still gave him 3 points.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Though to be fair to them doing 30 in a 50 is not dangerous. Frustrating for the person behind perhaps, that that's their tough shit. If they can't overtake safely, then don't. My mum is not the best driver in the world, she is slow and takes time to make her mind up at junctions - but she is a hell of a lot safer then the stupid 30 year old who went into the back of her while piloting his BMW repmobile. "She didn't need to stop at the roundabout, it was clear" was his excuse. Plod still gave him 3 points.... It can be though...it can force ppl to perform dangerous manoeuvres through frustration...you should be matching the speed of the traffic flow...I also feel that 50cc scooters that can't do more than 30mph are dangerous...and I used to have one... You can also be done for careless driving.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3694201.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 My idea of driving being a 'privilige' is down to the fact I don't really want other people who can't drive properly running over my skull. The problem is a combination of mission creep and the 'if you're not guilty, you've got nothing to be afraid of' mentality. Once you entrench the notion that a spuriously elected or self-appointed elite can determine what is acceptable driving and what not, you're at the top of a slippery slope. Let's say you introduce compulsory retesting every five years. To start with it's light touch - just a way of making sure you haven't got into any bad habits. Then they bring a new element of the test in: if you can't get 50mpg out of your Fiesta on a ten-mile test route, then you're an environmentally unfriendly driver who is too heavy on the right pedal. You fail. Then, if you attempt to overtake a cyclist with anything less than three metres' clearance, you're recklessly endangering the poor cyclist's life. You fail. Then they put the fee for your five-yearly test up to £700. And so on and so forth. Be very, very careful about letting the government into your life any more than it's there already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The problem is a combination of mission creep and the 'if you're not guilty, you've got nothing to be afraid of' mentality. Once you entrench the notion that a spuriously elected or self-appointed elite can determine what is acceptable driving and what not, you're at the top of a slippery slope. Let's say you introduce compulsory retesting every five years. To start with it's light touch - just a way of making sure you haven't got into any bad habits. Then they bring a new element of the test in: if you can't get 50mpg out of your Fiesta on a ten-mile test route, then you're an environmentally unfriendly driver who is too heavy on the right pedal. You fail. Then, if you attempt to overtake a cyclist with anything less than three metres' clearance, you're recklessly endangering the poor cyclist's life. You fail. Then they put the fee for your five-yearly test up to £700. And so on and so forth. Be very, very careful about letting the government into your life any more than it's there already. Yes I totally agree. I am very wary of them getting involved in too many aspects of our lives. No argument there. However there are a few that I don't have such an issue with. And seeing just how shocking most drivers are, and I mean most, I think driving could be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It can be though...it can force ppl to perform dangerous manoeuvres through frustration...you should be matching the speed of the traffic flow...I also feel that 50cc scooters that can't do more than 30mph are dangerous...and I used to have one...You can also be done for careless driving.... That is a pretty extreme case, and she was probably done for not being able to see as much as the speed. How exactly is a driver "forced" to make a dangerous manoeuvre because of a slow driver? The driver behind has to take the situation as it comes. Say I'm towing a big trailer and I choose to do 40 on a 50 road. Does that "force" you to overtake me dangerously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 That is a pretty extreme case, and she was probably done for not being able to see as much as the speed. How exactly is a driver "forced" to make a dangerous manoeuvre because of a slow driver? The driver behind has to take the situation as it comes. Say I'm towing a big trailer and I choose to do 40 on a 50 road. Does that "force" you to overtake me dangerously? 40 in a 50 isn't as bad as 30 in a 50 or 30 in 60, but they should still aim to match the flow of the traffic...You can't stop an idiot over taking on blind bends (which I've seen before), but you can also cause accidents by not using proper road sense...You also have to be considerate to other road users...If the driver of a towing trailing is coming up to a straight bit of road, move over slightly, so that there's enough room for drivers behind to pass, rather than sticking right in the middle of the road...I believe in common courtesy.. I've driven allsorts on public roads, cars, vans, tractors, diggers, motorbikes etc...A maximum speed for a tractor, is roughly 30mph...I would pull into a layby to let ppl through if there's a queue behind me (if it's possible), its the only sensible thing to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 40 in a 50 isn't as bad as 30 in a 50 or 30 in 60, but they should still aim to match the flow of the traffic...You can't stop an idiot over taking on blind bends (which I've seen before), but you can also cause accidents by not using proper road sense...You also have to be considerate to other road users...If the driver of a towing trailing is coming up to a straight bit of road, move over slightly, so that there's enough room for drivers behind to pass, rather than sticking right in the middle of the road...I believe in common courtesy.. I've driven allsorts on public roads, cars, vans, tractors, diggers, motorbikes etc...A maximum speed for a tractor, is roughly 30mph...I would pull into a layby to let ppl through if there's a queue behind me (if it's possible), its the only sensible thing to do... Can't an old person do the same ? As long as they are prepared to pull over and let others pass that is fine. good, problems solved. I often pull over when hassled by an idiot tailgater weaving behind me, often I must say, with the hope that I will then see their car rammed into a tree further down the road. I also often tow a trailer at 30 mph and am often astonished at the risks people take. Don't know why people don't remember the saying: "Better late than dead" It seems that anyone not going at the speed someone else wants to travel at is a nuiscance You can always leave a little more time for your journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Number of fatal accidents per 100m miles, I think US statistics: It's graphs like this that make me think nobody under the age of 25 or over the age of 75 should be driving. A passerby's life or ability to walk are just not worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Can't an old person do the same ? As long as they are prepared to pull over and let others pass that is fine. good, problems solved. I often pull over when hassled by an idiot tailgater weaving behind me, often I must say, with the hope that I will then see their car rammed into a tree further down the road. I also often tow a trailer at 30 mph and am often astonished at the risks people take. Don't know why people don't remember the saying: "Better late than dead" It seems that anyone not going at the speed someone else wants to travel at is a nuiscance You can always leave a little more time for your journey. Do they though? I'f they aren't road aware, many just dordle along without looking their mirrors, totally oblivious to the queue that's forming behind them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchbux Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Though to be fair to them doing 30 in a 50 is not dangerous. Frustrating for the person behind perhaps, that that's their tough shit. If they can't overtake safely, then don't. My mum is not the best driver in the world, she is slow and takes time to make her mind up at junctions - but she is a hell of a lot safer then the stupid 30 year old who went into the back of her while piloting his BMW repmobile. "She didn't need to stop at the roundabout, it was clear" was his excuse. Plod still gave him 3 points.... Good. People who stop to look at an obviously clear roundabout are a mild irritation. Tailgaters, and people who drive straight out at roundabouts without looking properly, boil my piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.