Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html en-gb 30 Wed 16 Apr 2014 18:21:33 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html Gary http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment865 I sell insurance for a living, and I can tell you that young drivers ARE restricted in the power of the cars they are allowed to drive and the modifications.The UK and Europe have a very stringent test system and anyone capable of passing it should not be restricted it particular times of the day. I have found that selfishness and bad manners are often the main causes of accidents. it is impossible to keep a safe distance from the car infront when some idiot thinks they can just pull into that gap. selfish drivers think they have the right to pull out of slip roads forcing cars already on the road to break or swerve. selishness is certainly not the reserve of young drivers. I hear many horror stories of this kind of behavior and the vast majority of these seem to involve big off-road vehicles such as land rovers. it is time to stop knocking and blaming all young drivers because of the few morons in their age group. believe me, when you are charged £3000 or more for your insurance because of your age, as well as a huge excess which young drivers are you take your driving very seriously Sat 25 Sep 2010 06:26:19 GMT+1 KissThisThen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment864 OK, I haven't read all the posts so apologies if this is a repeat. It always seems that we try to reinvent the wheel in this country. Every time we think of improving something, why don't we find out what other countries do and see if we can use 'best practice', (like we "should" be doing in industry).If we make housing more affrdable, the kids will move out of their parents houses and won't be able to afford cars for a while. Alsdo, some of the changes to the test/road rules since I passed make the roads less safe (eg. signalling at roundabouts, not going down through the gears at junctions) Sat 25 Sep 2010 03:10:19 GMT+1 righteoussasquatch http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment863 Does the driving test need an overhaul? YESMotorists need to be tested on motorway skills as part of their test. Lorry drivers especially need motorway skills tested. Lorry drivers need their skills tested on how to secure a load. Motorists that are caught using their telephone whilst driving should be immediately disqualified until they pass their test again. I reckon that could stop that bad behaviour overnight. Drunk drivers should likewise be banned and then have to resit their test again. Fear is a great motivator for correct motoring behaviour. Fri 24 Sep 2010 21:31:04 GMT+1 lolages http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment862 837. At 09:20am on 24 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:830. At 10:44pm on 23 Sep 2010, lolages wrote:cyrlists are injured by motorists who think they are a law unto themselves in their crash bag, crumple zoned tin boxes.----------------------------For that comment I assume you either dont drive or that there are no cyclists where you do drive. If a car and cyclist crash it is the cyclist that gets off worse. So please tell me why they->ride the wrong side of the road>occupy the middle of the lane>ignore red lights>ride side by side and occupying the whole lane>curb hopAnd of course many other law breaking and dangerous acts all by the cyclists. Drivers aint that dangerous. There are almost no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorway.----------------Ah indeed you are wrong, I drive a car 30 yrs, a bicycle (to work), a motorcycle 28 yrs, and have a HGV class one licence 15 yrs, got done for speeding in 1988, never had an own fault crash. So I think Im qualified to make observations.What car drivers forget is that they pay for the privilege of driving (tax) pedestrians and cyclists have an entitlement to use the paths and roads. I cant condone running a red light, but having to pop on the pavement on dangerous roads, maybe the only way to get along a congested road, riding side by side? perfectly legal, sorry that we slow you down (can that be a bad thing?), but TBH cycling 6 miles to work is quicker than driving which does frustrate the competitive drivers LOLI would rekon 3 or 4 dangerous moments when I cycle to work, from rude, inconsiderate, sleepy, dopy, and plain stupid car drivers.As for your last comment, go away and re think? Fri 24 Sep 2010 19:34:42 GMT+1 Enny2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment861 Usdeeper, a young boy crashing into lamp post may not bother you, but just incase there is someone standing by the lamp post and got hit. And what if the boy has four friends in his car? The death of one naughty boy is too many. We all know what crazy things our youths can do. We have all been there before. So, please, care! Fri 24 Sep 2010 19:15:58 GMT+1 Enny2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment860 What a very good idea? I wonder why we did not think of it earlier than now. Please, waste no more time, bring it on ASAP. Fri 24 Sep 2010 19:07:17 GMT+1 mildenhalljohn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment859 Cars are like shotguns, lethal in the wrong hands. However with a car, it doesn't matter what you do on the road, you will get your licence back at some time or other. Simply show your unsuitability to hold a shotgun licence, then you can, with near certainty, say goodbye to ever possessing a shot gun again. To possess a driving licence should not be a right, it should be a hard won privelage. Fri 24 Sep 2010 18:58:37 GMT+1 Fuzzgin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=99#comment858 No, I'm not safe to drive and I know it. Luckily I have never learned, but due to several health conditions I know it would be dangerous.As for other drivers, I think the licence should be renewed with a test every 10 years. At least. Anyone caught driving dangerously should have their licence shredded. Permanently. If I walk along the street for 10 minutes I can guarantee I will see at least one person who despite their test is not driving safely. Not bothering to indicate, pulling out into oncoming traffic, you name it. More must be done. Driving is not a right. Consider yourselves lucky if you are allowed. Fri 24 Sep 2010 18:58:18 GMT+1 walmsley-mum http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment857 A bad driver is a bad driver is a bad driver. Take an honest look around at yourself, your fmily, and other drivers and you'll see that that is true. Age and sex has no real bearing on it.My son passed his test at 17. Whilst learning he pointed out little things about my driving that i didn't want to hear, but had to agree that he was right about. Between us both, i think that we have made each other better drivers.He's not a boy racer, and saved HARD to buy his car and insure it. My only cost towards it was that i paid for his lessons, tests and licence. He already knew the basics when he started and probably could have passed his test after 2 or 3 lessons - but i wanted him to LEARN TO DRIVE not just to pass. After all, no matter what, MY CHILD will always be in that car and i want it to be safe.He earnt his licence, and to restrict him would be wrong.Just as it would be wrong to say every woman, every oap, or every white van man is a bad driver.How many people - the rich and famous for example - get away with bad driving?Fines, restictions, loss of licence - enforce tham all when you do wrong.It is not fair to punish someone before they do anything wrong. Fri 24 Sep 2010 17:39:22 GMT+1 Matt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment856 853. At 4:35pm on 24 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:851. At 4:01pm on 24 Sep 2010, Matt wrote:There are no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorways because bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on motorways, or did you forget about thats one? Whats wrong with two cyclists side by side in a lane, you are supposed to give them the same space as a car anyway. Drivers aint that dangerous, maybe so, but stupid drivers are. ------------------------------I was hoping nobody would need to mention this but I did kinda expect it. Of course there are none running across the motorway. When cars, cyclists and pedestrians mix only the car comes off well. Yet if you watch how cyclists and pedestrians treat the roads you would think they were invincible.Yes bad drivers are a problem but everyone seems to forget the other involved parties who should take some responsibility. But yet the blame always falls onto the driver who is in the worst position and has a stopping distance (unlike pedestrians and bikes).----------------------------------Car drivers are just as bad as pedestrians or cyclists. I've been crossing a road safely when someone has sped up to run me over for a laugh to make me run. The speed he went to would have killed me if I had not got out of the way. I have seen a car with a family in it drive through a red light into the path of a bus I was on, which would have decimated the car and its occupants. You have said that pedestrians and cyclists are like some plague of morons wandering thoughtlessly into the path of oncoming vehicles, but I have not encountered this every day, and I'm pretty sure I would see the results of it a lot more at work in the hospital I work at. I'd probably say there is about the same amount of people who behave like this as there are poor drivers. Fri 24 Sep 2010 16:44:28 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment855 There is a simple solution to this and other problems.We should create a society more like Avatar.People who just pass their driving tests should be dyed luminous blue for a year, so that other car drivers can be aware of them, especially at night.Same with anti-social crims etc, just dye them luminous yellow for a year so as they walk past everyone can hide their wallets etc, yellow is a colour which basically denotes their moral decency social courage, or lack of it .People who enter UK should be dyed with a base luminous pink with different colour spots to denote which month or year they came here, hence overstayers will be easy to spot ( SPOT)LOL!.Ordinary people could just be dyed with a tangerine colour which would do away with ethnicity racism, which means it will also save money because of the already tangerine chavs.Politicians can be dyed a murky dirty grey which more befits public perception of them.There are alternatives to most things, even asbos!!! Fri 24 Sep 2010 16:37:47 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment854 it's ridiculous that they even think about making a rule to stop new drivers driving at night or with people of similar age. i passed my driving test last week, spent £50 on a provisional, £31 on a theory test, £62 on a practical test and £620 on driving lessons, i should be allowed to drive my car whenever i damn well please.================================You can, just not at night time!!!! Fri 24 Sep 2010 16:20:30 GMT+1 WiseOldBob http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment853 4. At 09:46am on 21 Sep 2010, shortfatbaldy wrote: :. . . young men in particular think with their testicles and not their still-developing brains. And similarly for elderly. . . "Interesting notion!11. At 09:52am on 21 Sep 2010, Miss Ann Thrope wrote:"Young people can't drive. This is a FACT.Old people can't drive. This is a FACT."These must be FACTS Miss Ann, as you have proven them to be so by using CAPITAL letters when spelling out FACT. Otherwise I would have foolishly thought it was merely CONJECTURE! Though it's fairly reasonable to attest that people under the age of, say 2 can't generally drive. At least not automobiles. Perhaps we should reintroduce that bloke with the red flag who used to have to walk along in front of the car to warn the general public of the imminent danger. It would help with the unemployment problem too! Fri 24 Sep 2010 16:05:28 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment852 851. At 4:01pm on 24 Sep 2010, Matt wrote:There are no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorways because bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on motorways, or did you forget about thats one? Whats wrong with two cyclists side by side in a lane, you are supposed to give them the same space as a car anyway. Drivers aint that dangerous, maybe so, but stupid drivers are. ------------------------------I was hoping nobody would need to mention this but I did kinda expect it. Of course there are none running across the motorway. When cars, cyclists and pedestrians mix only the car comes off well. Yet if you watch how cyclists and pedestrians treat the roads you would think they were invincible.Yes bad drivers are a problem but everyone seems to forget the other involved parties who should take some responsibility. But yet the blame always falls onto the driver who is in the worst position and has a stopping distance (unlike pedestrians and bikes). Fri 24 Sep 2010 15:35:52 GMT+1 khan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment851 I started driving in 1979, and touch wood never been involved in even a small accident; however, 2 times DVLA staff failed me for "not being nosy", and "not moving around your whole body to see the side mirror". I don't want to take another test now. I do what the rest of the thousands of drivers are doing: driving on Internatioinal License, which I have to renew each year, and hence can't a full one year bouns and pay £75 pounds a month for just going to the market in a Micra car, because thanks to NHS I got a back-problem.who cares?People from EU coming to this country,where there is LEFT HAND DRIVE, get a UK driving liscense without going to any tests. Is it not discrimination? The standards of DVLA are rubbish.I was revese parking once in a tiny place in London, and an elderly person saw me parking saying: you got some driving skills! I said: yes because I don't have the UK license. Fri 24 Sep 2010 15:06:16 GMT+1 Matt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment850 837. At 09:20am on 24 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:830. At 10:44pm on 23 Sep 2010, lolages wrote:cyrlists are injured by motorists who think they are a law unto themselves in their crash bag, crumple zoned tin boxes. ----------------------------For that comment I assume you either dont drive or that there are no cyclists where you do drive. If a car and cyclist crash it is the cyclist that gets off worse. So please tell me why they->ride the wrong side of the road>occupy the middle of the lane>ignore red lights>ride side by side and occupying the whole lane>curb hopAnd of course many other law breaking and dangerous acts all by the cyclists. Drivers aint that dangerous. There are almost no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorway.------------------------------------------There are no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorways because bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on motorways, or did you forget about thats one? Whats wrong with two cyclists side by side in a lane, you are supposed to give them the same space as a car anyway. Drivers aint that dangerous, maybe so, but stupid drivers are. Fri 24 Sep 2010 15:01:05 GMT+1 Illogicbuster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=98#comment849 lucyloopy wrote: "There is a big difference between teenagers and 23 year olds though! In the US people start driving at 16 (15 in some states)"True, I grew up in a rural area of Colorado and was driving at age 9. Hard to imagine waiting until age 23 to learn something like driving a car. My 1st car (when I got licensed at age 16) was a 6.5 liter muscle car. Fortunately, I could drive very well by then. Or I wouldn't be alive today. Fri 24 Sep 2010 14:30:42 GMT+1 buttons http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment848 716. At 3:54pm on 22 Sep 2010, Bluemoaner1966 wrote:HE was the one in the wrong, he pulled in without indicating first (how was I supposed to know what he was doing?) there was no traffic coming the other way which is why I passed at a sensible speed ie not more than 30 mph, he then started following me and tailgating me to get me to speed up but I took no notice and drove at 30mph which is the speed for built up areas is it not?The road then splits into 2 lanes, one for turning left, one for right, (I was going right) and he was searing at me to 'f-ing put my window down' but as both windows on that side of the car are not currently working (and I cannot afford to put it right) I mouthed this and he put 2 fingers up at me. I was trying to avoid a scene at the time with my son in the back.Typical arrogant middle-aged 4 x 4 driver.-------This doesn't quite make sense,He should have indicated, I'll give you that.If it was a built up area and a 30 mph zone, why were you over taking?If this guy was as bad as you say he was, I doubt you were able to overtake him only doing 30mph (he sounds like he would have been going alot faster, seeing as you then say he tried to get you to speed up).Sounds to me, that you wanted to try and teach this guy a lesson for nearly hitting your car while your 8 yr old was inside and it kind of backfired..Not all 4X4 drivers are the same, what type of car someone chooses to drive is there decision and if they pay for it, then it is no one else's concern.. Fri 24 Sep 2010 14:13:43 GMT+1 Chris Williams http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment847 it's ridiculous that they even think about making a rule to stop new drivers driving at night or with people of similar age. i passed my driving test last week, spent £50 on a provisional, £31 on a theory test, £62 on a practical test and £620 on driving lessons, i should be allowed to drive my car whenever i damn well please. Fri 24 Sep 2010 14:06:57 GMT+1 philsail1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment846 I too think that new drivers should be restricted to daytime driving - to allow them to gain experience.I also think that teaching "good driving manners" should be a component of the driving test.I have been driving since 1970. I have been lucky to have only suffered one minor accident in all those years (within the first six months of passing test).I was taught "defensive driving" by my instructor. I didn't fully appreciate the teaching at the time, but over the years, I have come to appreciate that one cannot afford to drive aggressively today, as you just do not know what the other driver is going to do. The faster one drives, the less time you have to think in an emergency situation.Driving has become much more aggressive. People are always in an extreme hurry to get where they are going. This can often lead to accidents, which not only endanger inncoent lives, but also hold people up in massive traffic jams - all because someone was in a hurry.We have the wonderful luxury of of going to and from work in our cars, in all sorts of weather. We should be thankful of this, and drive at a speed which is safe for the road, traffic, and weather conditions at the time - and be a little bit more courteous and considerate to others. We all make mistakes when driving, and it is often only by the good grace of others that we avoid an accident.Best wishes to everyone.Phil Edwards (Mr).North Wales. Fri 24 Sep 2010 13:27:49 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment845 845. At 1:42pm on 24 Sep 2010, sturubbish wrote:Human beings cause death and danger on our roads, so let's ban them! I once choked on a bit of a cheese toastie, so they should be banned! Somebody I know drowned in the sea, so the sea should be banned!I could go on...---------------------------Wish you would. A few hours of this and the 'ban it all' bregade may realise the point Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:57:35 GMT+1 sturubbish http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment844 Human beings cause death and danger on our roads, so let's ban them! I once choked on a bit of a cheese toastie, so they should be banned! Somebody I know drowned in the sea, so the sea should be banned! I could go on... Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:42:59 GMT+1 buttons http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment843 1. When you loose your licence either due to points or drink then to re gain it the person should have to go through lessons again followed by the full test. Not just get it back at the end of the ban. 2. Once a person reaches 65 then they should be made to take safety tests to ensure reactions and sight.3. Insurance for young drivers needs to be hugely increased if they wish to drive fast cars.4. New car drivers should be limited as to the engine size and type of car they can be let loose with on the roads. However personally I don’t drive, and have no intension of doing so, our house hold manages just fine, its leg power, bus, or train. It can be done. Sadly it is mostly ego (you know what they say about blokes with big cars!) and laziness that necessitates a car. ----1. I work in the courts system and am currently studying a law degree, when you lose your license, you have to take the driving test again but it is a must harder model and costs alot more than the normal one. 2. Totally agree.3. Depends on what you think is fast? I drive a 1.5 DCi Cleo and it's pretty nippy compared to a 998cc matiz. My insurance was low because I am a girl (even though I am 20 now, 18 when first driving, my first years insurance was only £900 fully comp!) and my car is in band B for insurance even though a 1.5 engine. If my boyfriend who is 24 trys to insure himself on my car, it's at least £1700. Not so much to do with the car, but the gender of the driver I would think, which I feel would amount to sexual discrimination but insurance companies call it statistics. 4. I already made a point on this earlier, it's not the car, it's the driver. The amount of times my 1.5 has gotten me out of tricky situations where a 1 litre petrol corse just wouldn't have cut it. As for your speech on public transport, rubbish. I go to Uni in Reading and my home town is Brighton, it costs me £22 for a single with a young persons railcard! To get to Reading! For that, I can put a tank of diesel in my car, go at a time that suits me, put my suitcase in my car, not have to watch for looneys on the train and still have enough diesel to go back up to Uni once finished at home! Public transport sucks and is inconvient, and until it gets better, car users will keep using their cars, as will I. Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:32:22 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment842 No one will ever win this argument. Critising a man of ANY age about his ability to drive is tantamount to questioning his manhood. Critisising a woman driver of ANY age is seen as a scapegoat and a way of diverting attention away from the fact that the man was in the wrong which means you are critising the man, which is tantamount to questioning etc etc.It is a fact that some people are better drivers than others and that covers ALL ages. Some people feel that once they are on the road they have more rights than others by virtue of their engine size, prestige car, job, bank balance, status - most of which is only known to them but everyone on the road shold just KNOW that they are more important so MAKE WAY, I'M COMING THROUGH! It has nothing to do with ability to drive, it is ego, arrogance and self importance. People of all ages and gender suffer from it. No amount of testing, retesting and fines will make any difference.GET OVER IT Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:27:35 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=97#comment841 Driving licences should be graded according to ones age and the vehicles engine size. If you commit any offence (excluding parking), your licence gets automatically downgraded and you have to sit a re-test to get its privileges back. See my previous post, number 338 Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:17:55 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment840 Inexperienced drivers should be banned from night drivingWhat utter TwaddleDoes the driving test need an overhaul?Yes, it needs to include motorway driving, driving at night and driving in adverse weather conditions. The theory part of the driving test is all well and good but doesn't equate to good practical training. Fri 24 Sep 2010 12:05:23 GMT+1 lucyloopy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment839 " 838. At 10:20am on 24 Sep 2010, Illogicbuster wrote:In California the law was changed about 10 years ago. The 1st 6 months of a teens licensing period prohibited night driving. The 1st year you couldn't have other teens in the car unless there was also an adult. Accidents in that age group dropped quite a bit"There is a big difference between teenagers and 23 year olds though! In the US people start driving at 16 (15 in some states) there is a big difference between the maturity of 15/16 year olds and 23 years olds (for the most part anyway :-p) Fri 24 Sep 2010 11:41:52 GMT+1 FH http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment838 My brother passed his driving test recently, aged 29. His shiny new 2.0l diesel BMW was waiting for him on the drive, and within a week he thought it would be a good idea to fill the tank with unleaded fuel. A few weeks after that, he parked his car upside down in a ditch after taking a corner too quickly in the rain on a rural road. He now faces losing his licence as he has had too many speeding tickets within two years of passing his test.By contrast, I passed at 22. I drove small, modest cars until I could afford to insure and felt safe driving something larger. I have yet to receive a speeding fine and have never caused an accident. Should I have been restricted to driving only between certain hours because I was a liability as a 22-year-old driver? Or should my newly qualified 29-year-old brother have been restricted because he is clearly not a sensible and safe car owner/driver?Age does not have anything to do with whether people cause accidents. Young drivers are already penalised enough with high insurance costs - don't tar them all with the same brush and restrict them all. Fri 24 Sep 2010 09:36:30 GMT+1 Illogicbuster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment837 In California the law was changed about 10 years ago. The 1st 6 months of a teens licensing period prohibited night driving. The 1st year you couldn't have other teens in the car unless there was also an adult. Accidents in that age group dropped quite a bit. Fri 24 Sep 2010 09:20:27 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment836 830. At 10:44pm on 23 Sep 2010, lolages wrote:cyrlists are injured by motorists who think they are a law unto themselves in their crash bag, crumple zoned tin boxes. ----------------------------For that comment I assume you either dont drive or that there are no cyclists where you do drive. If a car and cyclist crash it is the cyclist that gets off worse. So please tell me why they->ride the wrong side of the road>occupy the middle of the lane>ignore red lights>ride side by side and occupying the whole lane>curb hopAnd of course many other law breaking and dangerous acts all by the cyclists. Drivers aint that dangerous. There are almost no pedestrian or cyclist deaths on the motorway. Fri 24 Sep 2010 08:20:42 GMT+1 Lets make politics illegal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment835 There appears to be an assumption that good ideas should be passed into law. There is absolutely no need for this. In this case, insurance companies could benefit themselves and all of us simply by placing appropriate restrictions on drivers under their policies. This could happen immediately. No need for expensive & inflexible legislation which would most probably be outdated before it ever reached the statute book. Fri 24 Sep 2010 07:57:06 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment834 This site is always coming up with divisive "Should X be banned for Y"-type questions, and we all pile in there. Talk about divide and rule and fish in a barrel! Ah the great british spirit: anodise those handcuffs a fetching shade and they'll pay to wear them... Fri 24 Sep 2010 05:59:30 GMT+1 Kadazan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment833 I'm one of those elderly drivers that police would like to have me resit my test. I've got news for them, they know nothing but insurance companies sure do and they have far better stats than the police otherwise I could not afford the premiums! This kind of back-biting is rife at the moment and must stop especially when it's expressed as opinion unsupported by reality. As for new drivers being put on a graduated basis, it would be impossible to monitor and what would be the crime, after all they possess a valid driving licence? Easier and probably more manageable would be to disallow a new driver from buying, possessing or hiring a car until the age of say 21 and only allowed to continue driving in the intervening period accompanied by an adult. It's not brilliant but it's a lot better than trying to ban night driving. Thu 23 Sep 2010 23:43:02 GMT+1 Superlad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=96#comment832 827. At 9:14pm on 23 Sep 2010, irondoctorglennjones wrote:759. At 00:17am on 23 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:570. At 10:35pm on 21 Sep 2010, irondoctorglennjones wrote:400. At 3:04pm on 21 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:259. At 1:01pm on 21 Sep 2010, Dai the Tie wrote:All bicycles should be taxed and their users licensed and insured..........................................................That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard.Bikes do not contribute to even 0.01% of all road casualties.Bikes do not contribute to billions of government pounds to clear up roads and crash scenes............................................................To Joe I dont know where you get your stats from but in 2008 there werejust under 231,000 road casualties in Great Britain in 2008 and 16,297 were cyclist's so that's 7% ( so I dont know were your 0.01% or 162 in total) and I bet 5% were due to the cyclists fault like going through red lights, I ride a bike and I see it so many times butthey think as they dont have a license plate they are not going to get caught and so the rule don't apply to them.Just the other day I nearly ran over a 20 year on a bike listening to an ipod while riding through a red light, when i stopped 2 inch in front of him he was surprised i shouted at him.http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008..................................................Firstly the 7% involved cyclist, there is nothing to suggest that those casualties were caused by cyclists (do I don't deny that some may have been). But the fact is the majority of those casualties all involved cars or larger vehicles. I do not know of many occasions where fatalities have been caused by cyclists ALONE.The fact is yes, there are careless cyclists out there, but in many cases they only need to worry about their own lives. When you're in a car it is far easier to become less perceptive as you are safe in the majority of cases. When it comes to a game of chicken between a cyclist and a car, who is going to win in every case?Heck, the amount the times I've nearly been run over (as a pedestrian) at a crossing because of some careless drivers on the phone or a boy-racer showing off in front of his mates. Believe me when you don't have metal bars surrounding you it is to your own advantage to be more perceptive than somebody tucked up behind the wheel.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You must be one of the few pedestrians that use the crossing properly, Every time in drive down a high street, I find people walk across the road despite being a crossing 5 meters away, or if they are on the crossing they can't be bothered to wait for the lights. If the government or the road safety charity "brake" dare researched into how many pedestrian were injured or killed within 15 meters of a crossing( but not on the crossing) or cross while (their) lights were red I think you will find a rather large percentage of the accident were caused by the pedestrian. The results, however, would soon be quashed because it doesn't fit in to their policy of 20's plenty,My argument is this, how many pedestrians die crossing the M25 each year? The answer is none, why? It's busy and cars are( sometimes) travelling at 70 mph, so why no pedestrians or cyclists dyeing? Is it because there are no pedestrians!!!!Shock horror, if people crossed the road in the proper place and waited for the lights to change maybe there might not be so many accidents! ..................................................Very good point, and while I accept the explanation for statistics you cannot deny that there are equally as many bad drivers as there are pedestrians out there. After all, both fall into the human category. And you cannot deny that deaths can occur both on or off the motorway. The fact is that drivers are more conscientious on the motorways than they are on ordinary city or town roads, any why? It's because their lives depend on it. Like I said, in a collision between a pedestrian and a driver, who is more likely to come out unscathed?And whether a pedestrian is crossing at a crossing or at the roadside, it is a drivers responsibility to stare safe for both the pedestrian and the person(s) inside the vehicle.Now don't get me wrong, there are many idiot pedestrians and cyclists out there, but but the differences between those people and those behind the wheel is, when a cyclist/pedestrian slips up, they immediately pay the price for that mistake. Drivers can more likely afford to become reckless. Thu 23 Sep 2010 23:36:14 GMT+1 Alex Worrall http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment831 I thought driving in the dark was safer than in the daylight, since you can always tell when a vehicle is about to come round the corner due to its headlamps. I'm sure it's dangerous for people who like walking in the road, but such people are responsible for their own safety. Thu 23 Sep 2010 22:56:42 GMT+1 braveraddish http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment830 Gosh how silly,what about the people that need to go to work at night?Actually I learned most of my driving at night, I found the roads quieter.And no I dont need a license, as I dont have a car, but its useful to put on a CV that I have one. Generally I dont like driving, its too stressful and too expensive. Thu 23 Sep 2010 22:47:52 GMT+1 lolages http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment829 cyrlists are injured by motorists who think they are a law unto themselves in their crash bag, crumple zoned tin boxes. Thu 23 Sep 2010 21:44:24 GMT+1 MIRZA http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment828 To deserve a driving license one must first be of the government fixed age group along with recent medical certificate to the that the individual is not color blind or night blind, that he is not a hyper-tension patient and that his eye sight is fit for driving with or without glass..Now, once a person gets a license tends to drive the vehicle according to his own rule instead of observing the traffic rule and laws. As days go by the tendency of violating traffic laws also increases. The propensity to violate traffic laws increases is because the penal provision is very meager compare to the offense the license holder commit wittingly or unwittingly. The provision for cancellation of license for both minor and major traffic rules/laws violation should be strictly enforced that will pinch the drivers and will be cautious while driving. In third world countries the Traffic law violation is unimaginable even by strict penal provisions accidents for rush driving is unmanageable over and above police corruption is also to be added to the creation of problem.There should be a license renewal-driving test every after five years for all particularly those who had been checked for minor or major traffic violation over the period. For aged over 50years every after two years License renewal test should be mandatory.. Thu 23 Sep 2010 21:21:42 GMT+1 ThankyouandGoodbye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment827 815. At 5:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, John Adair wrote:... I am sick to death of slowpoke drivers that hog the middle and outer lanes at 60 MPH and always take pleasure from undertaking them as close as I can to try and wake them up.......SPEED DOES NOT KILL, BAD DRIVING DOES! --------------------------------................Indeed. Thu 23 Sep 2010 20:44:58 GMT+1 Wideboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment826 759. At 00:17am on 23 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:570. At 10:35pm on 21 Sep 2010, irondoctorglennjones wrote:400. At 3:04pm on 21 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:259. At 1:01pm on 21 Sep 2010, Dai the Tie wrote:All bicycles should be taxed and their users licensed and insured..........................................................That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard.Bikes do not contribute to even 0.01% of all road casualties.Bikes do not contribute to billions of government pounds to clear up roads and crash scenes............................................................To Joe I dont know where you get your stats from but in 2008 there werejust under 231,000 road casualties in Great Britain in 2008 and 16,297 were cyclist's so that's 7% ( so I dont know were your 0.01% or 162 in total) and I bet 5% were due to the cyclists fault like going through red lights, I ride a bike and I see it so many times butthey think as they dont have a license plate they are not going to get caught and so the rule don't apply to them.Just the other day I nearly ran over a 20 year on a bike listening to an ipod while riding through a red light, when i stopped 2 inch in front of him he was surprised i shouted at him.http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008..................................................Firstly the 7% involved cyclist, there is nothing to suggest that those casualties were caused by cyclists (do I don't deny that some may have been). But the fact is the majority of those casualties all involved cars or larger vehicles. I do not know of many occasions where fatalities have been caused by cyclists ALONE.The fact is yes, there are careless cyclists out there, but in many cases they only need to worry about their own lives. When you're in a car it is far easier to become less perceptive as you are safe in the majority of cases. When it comes to a game of chicken between a cyclist and a car, who is going to win in every case?Heck, the amount the times I've nearly been run over (as a pedestrian) at a crossing because of some careless drivers on the phone or a boy-racer showing off in front of his mates. Believe me when you don't have metal bars surrounding you it is to your own advantage to be more perceptive than somebody tucked up behind the wheel.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You must be one of the few pedestrians that use the crossing properly, Every time in drive down a high street, I find people walk across the road despite being a crossing 5 meters away, or if they are on the crossing they can't be bothered to wait for the lights. If the government or the road safety charity "brake" dare researched into how many pedestrian were injured or killed within 15 meters of a crossing( but not on the crossing) or cross while (their) lights were red I think you will find a rather large percentage of the accident were caused by the pedestrian. The results, however, would soon be quashed because it doesn't fit in to their policy of 20's plenty,My argument is this, how many pedestrians die crossing the M25 each year? The answer is none, why? It's busy and cars are( sometimes) travelling at 70 mph, so why no pedestrians or cyclists dyeing? Is it because there are no pedestrians!!!! Shock horror, if people crossed the road in the proper place and waited for the lights to change maybe there might not be so many accidents! Thu 23 Sep 2010 20:14:31 GMT+1 Rikiiboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment825 I suppose we all think we have a right to use and abuse our roads from time to time,I mean stupidity is not just reserved for the youngest drivers is it? IMO we will all be electronically monitored sooner or later,but I suppose there are lots of ways we can all improve our own manners and driving techniques on the road. Perhaps anyone who wants to obtain a normal driving license for use in the UK should be made to ride a bicycle for about two years first on our highways,the government could help by banning none essential motor vehicles off our roads at least one day a week (odds and even numberplates etc)were that the case thousands would take bicycles back on to our roads again,but it's no good blaming (legal)younger drivers who are forced to cough up extortionate insurance rates anyway,is it? Thu 23 Sep 2010 20:08:59 GMT+1 SarahB http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment824 My first reaction is, yes, restrict the young, the old, the frequent violators; restrict their milage, the power of their car, disallow rush hours, etc. But then I realized: They have to get to work; they have to buy groceries; they pay taxes and have as much right to public resources, including roads, as anybody (at least until they get too many tickets.) Plus, here in the US, there is little public transportation - certainly nobody could rely on it for a lifetime without a license. So, I'd say don't restrict a license until a person breaks the law or does damage. Then restrict according to their disability: can't think fast? restrict rush hours; can't control impulses? restrict the car's power; can't see? get the medical care or alternative solutions. Thu 23 Sep 2010 19:31:45 GMT+1 lolages http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=95#comment823 I do enjoy driving an old car, because while all the snooty people look down on me I an laughing at the money theyre wasting on their tin boxes! Thu 23 Sep 2010 19:27:04 GMT+1 lolages http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment822 my car has a cruise control as do the majority of trucks. Its easy to limit a vehicles speed.Tell me why anyone has the right to own a vehicle that can exceed the national speed limit? With GPS a car could be limited to a maximum speed anywhere in the country.Age/ points and experience should determine what size engine a driver can drive. After a ban a 1100cc car should be your limit for 3 years. Thu 23 Sep 2010 19:01:07 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment821 815. At 5:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, John Adair wrote:781. At 10:15am on 23 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school office.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxIf you can physically undertake someone, that means they are not driving on the left and therefore not following the highway code. I am sick to death of slowpoke drivers that hog the middle and outer lanes at 60 MPH and always take pleasure from undertaking them as close as I can to try and wake them up.SPEED DOES NOT KILL, BAD DRIVING DOES!---Glad to see that you lead by example? Thu 23 Sep 2010 18:32:07 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment820 820. piggyat10 wrote: Age cannot be used as an indicator of driving ability. Young, old and all between demonstrate abysmal 'driving' at some times. It is the accident statitics that tell the story - if the stats show that more young are getting killed per mile driven or whatver cut they hacve takemn - then that's what we have to deal with. Thu 23 Sep 2010 17:56:48 GMT+1 piggyat10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment819 Age cannot be used as an indicator of driving ability. Young, old and all between demonstrate abysmal 'driving' at some times. There should be periodic re-testing of all drivers (noting that not all licence holders actually drive) for current driving ability. The test should be dynamic, taking into account changes in traffic conditions, and include a health check (for all ages) to try to ensure fitness to drive.The driving test also needs to take account of driving on motorways, driving at night and driving in poor visibility/weather conditions.Licences should be withdrawn from driving miscreants much more frequently than at present. Thu 23 Sep 2010 17:35:07 GMT+1 Christine http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment818 I don't think it should depend on the age of the driver, rather on the experience of the driver. Give all new drivers a five-year provisional licence. In the first year they have to drive with a P on the car, only do 50 mph and not allowed to drive between 8 pm and 6 am (with dispensation awarded for commuting to and from work). After a year without incidents they can do 60 mph, but not drive between 10 pm and 6 am. After the second year without incidents they can do 70 mph and drive 24 hours a day, but for the following three years, if they're convicted of any motoring offense, they have to take lessons (the number of which should depend on how grave the offense was) and re-take their test before being allowed to drive again. Thu 23 Sep 2010 16:30:24 GMT+1 John Adair http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment817 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 16:25:12 GMT+1 John Adair http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment816 A lot of people in this cesspit of a country will not be happy until drivers are forced to drive everywhere at walking pace with a little man carrying a red flag 100 yards ahead of them. Why dont folk relearn the greencross code, teach youngsters to respect the roads for what they are and most of all GET A LIFE! Thu 23 Sep 2010 16:18:18 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=94#comment815 814. At 4:10pm on 23 Sep 2010, SussexRokx wrote:811. At 3:46pm on 23 Sep 2010, richardjackson99 wrote:Bring in Road Charging, and soon, so the large users pay most - for upkeep of roads, for their greater pollution.-----------------------------------Theoretically, this (pollution tax) already happens.Road tax by emission levels. (Not that the money is actually spent on roads though!)British motorists are already heavily taxed in various ways, why do you want to tax them still further? As you put it the "large users" are already paying the most!!!---It's about time we should tax all foreign vehicles coming into Great Britain that use our roads, as well. Thu 23 Sep 2010 16:16:57 GMT+1 John Adair http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment814 781. At 10:15am on 23 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school office.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxIf you can physically undertake someone, that means they are not driving on the left and therefore not following the highway code. I am sick to death of slowpoke drivers that hog the middle and outer lanes at 60 MPH and always take pleasure from undertaking them as close as I can to try and wake them up.The establishment have for the last two decades brainwashed folk into thinking that it is speed that kills and not bad driving. I would rather trust Jenson Button in a car at 120 MPH than some doddery, half blind old duffer at 50 MPH.SPEED DOES NOT KILL, BAD DRIVING DOES! Thu 23 Sep 2010 16:11:05 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment813 811. At 3:46pm on 23 Sep 2010, richardjackson99 wrote:Bring in Road Charging, and soon, so the large users pay most - for upkeep of roads, for their greater pollution.-----------------------------------Theoretically, this (pollution tax) already happens.Road tax by emission levels. (Not that the money is actually spent on roads though!)British motorists are already heavily taxed in various ways, why do you want to tax them still further? As you put it the "large users" are already paying the most!!! Thu 23 Sep 2010 15:10:10 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment812 810. At 3:46pm on 23 Sep 2010, AM wrote:Msg 789 - I agree30 Mph in a 30 limit is the max but its 30 because under normal conditions it has been deemed safe to drive on this road at 30Mph not 20Mph.It's a bit like why do people at 30/40 Mph speed cameras think they need to drive through them at 20Mph? ----------------------------I disagree with speed cameras because the least someone will do is look at the speedo (eyes off the road) and most often people will automatically break.Before more policing and blame to drivers I would like to see a real effort to make the roads drivable again. Remove useless signs and distractions and return to a more enjoyable drive. Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:59:44 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment811 796. At 12:22pm on 23 Sep 2010, iKnappy wrote:500. At 6:19pm on 21 Sep 2010, Dai the Tie wrote:All bicycles should be taxed and their users licensed and insured.---------------------------------------------------Ok so all those low emmission cars should pay tax as well? because at present they are exempt.Yes. They use the roads too, so let them contribute to their upkeepand the miss conception here also in your post that it goes to building roads...Did I mention anything in my last post to to suggest that road tax goes towards building 'new' roads? I think you'll find I used the term unkeep, Post 363'They use the roads as well, so let them also pay for their upkeep.' [sic]comprende?Try reading the whole thread, next time.Comprenez-vous? Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:55:25 GMT+1 richardjackson99 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment810 I have long thought (from well before there was any mention of recession) that it was an unspoken government policy that they would allow roads to become so congested and unbearable that people would choose other forms of transport. In my view, that is one of the principle causes of so called road rage.Restrict younger drivers: Yes.Some sort of check on older people's ability behind the wheel: Yes.Who's going to pay for it though?Bring in Road Charging, and soon, so the large users pay most - for upkeep of roads, for their greater pollution. This would also be a way of restrcting younger people's driving times, without using scarce resources.Finally, take your heads out of the sand please government, and build more roads where they are needed. I'm not advocating tarmaccing vast swathes of countryside, but some new roads are needed - many instead of existing ones, which could be returned to "green." Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:46:52 GMT+1 AM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment809 Msg 789 - I agree30 Mph in a 30 limit is the max but its 30 because under normal conditions it has been deemed safe to drive on this road at 30Mph not 20Mph.It's a bit like why do people at 30/40 Mph speed cameras think they need to drive through them at 20Mph? Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:46:50 GMT+1 DistantTraveller http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment808 "Should elderly motorists retake a test?"Regular eye tests and a review of any medical conditions should apply to all motorists - but there is no reason for elderly drivers to be discriminated against.The real danger is from young drivers who have little experience of the road (or life in general), and who are likely to speed, take risks or drive aggressively. Perhaps the minimum driving age should be increased. Thu 23 Sep 2010 14:04:20 GMT+1 ichabod http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment807 I know statistics should be treated with caution but it is clear that the vast majority of young driver accidents are caused by men. Women (and I'm no feminist) clearly show greater maturity at a younger age and this is reflected in the stats. I dont see why they should be penalised by new draconian rules. Equally although elderly drivers ostensibly pose some sort of hazard, the ability to drive provides many with a lifeline without which they would be housebound. Do we really want that instead? Just how many elderly accidents are there? I bet many are low speed, so what is the risk, as compared with a young hot head. Periodic driver training and assessment (but not a test) would be sensible. Just an aside on one more stat. More pedestrians are injured because they dont look where they are going than are injured by motorists exceeding the speed limit. We all know about speed cameras but when were your children last taught at school to cross the road safely? I thought not.Actually I'm uneasy about too much segmenting of the driving population for 'safety' reasons. Just what problem do we have? We have the safest roads in Europe. 30 million cars on a road infrastructure which has been underinvested for years in favour of trendy public transport initiatives.The Cardiff Univ. stuff sounds like a solution in search of problem by a University department keen to justify its existence ahead of the forthcoming reductions in spending to sensible levels - or 'cuts' as some falsely call them. Thu 23 Sep 2010 13:50:50 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=93#comment806 Apparently it is ok (by the moderators) to say a big metal spike instead of an airbag to make drivers careful, but to suggest similar for the non-drivers to be careful is blocked.I see why pedestrians think its ok to walk infront of moving cars because the BBC seem to have that opinion. Thu 23 Sep 2010 13:38:38 GMT+1 Artur Freitas http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment805 In South Africa too many drivers don’t understand traffic rules and/or the safety reasons for which they exist. Thu 23 Sep 2010 13:36:07 GMT+1 iKnappy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment804 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 13:17:55 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment803 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:56:54 GMT+1 Seqenenre http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment802 More to the point how many lives do ridiculously towed caravans take every year?We'd be better off banning them from the roads in my opinion. Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:54:15 GMT+1 pzero http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment801 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:45:52 GMT+1 Bluemoaner1966 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment800 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:32:21 GMT+1 Gordon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment799 458. At 4:41pm on 21 Sep 2010, JohnH wrote:Almost every motorcyclist I have EVER driven alongside all display the same blatent disregard for their own, and my safety.2 Weaving in and out of traffic. Your place is BEHIND me, and WAIT. Do not use a slight delay in movement as an authorisation to make a dangerous maneuver through a stopped lane of traffic.---------------------------------------------------------------I suspect the poster is one of those people whom believe that filtering is illigal and that if a motorcycle does have the audacity to do such a thing - it is sworn duty to put a stop to it! If your fed up with motorcycles passing you then there is an easy remedy - get one yourself and open up those myopic eyes of yours. Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:22:29 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment798 797. At 12:55pm on 23 Sep 2010, lucyloopy wrote:"694. At 2:15pm on 22 Sep 2010, SussexRokx wrote:It's all very well knowing stopping distances, but being able to perceive that distance is even more important. How for example would you know if you were a safe distance behind the car in front, relative to the speed you were travelling?"'Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' (said twice in wet conditions). If you can't say that between the car in front and you passing a certain point, you are going too fast!---------------------------Thanks for only posting part of what I said. If you'd included the bit where I asked who knew the simple rule for maintaining a safe distance, then that would have been fine. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to make me look stupid... ;o) Thu 23 Sep 2010 12:17:36 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=92#comment797 794. At 12:08pm on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:781. At 10:15am on 23 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school officeDepends on yours and the courts definition of "Congested". The man on the Clapham Omnibus would say, that if in lanes 2 and 3, albeit travelling at 60/65 mph, vehicles were less than 2 cars length apart, then the lanes are congested!---------------------------------I'll say this again, there is nothing in law that states passing (overtaking/undertaking) on the left is illegal. It is perfectly within the law to pass on the left, as long as the manoeuvre is carried out with extreme caution. The Highway Code is exactly what it says it is, a code to aid safe driving, where it specifically refers to a law it states it.No-one can be prosecuted for undertaking, however if the manoeuvre is deemed to be a danger to other road users then a driver can be proescuted for careless or dangerous driving, but not undertaking per se.Whilst there is no legal precedence banning undertaking, the manoeuvre is actively discouraged unless circumstances make it all but impossible to avoid, for example motorway congestion.Here of course we come to another question: what is congestion?Congestion does not necessarily mean traffic coming to a halt, rather it can mean traffic travelling at slower speeds than normal. Therefore on a motorway where the average speed is say 60mph overall, that speed may drop to 40 or 50mph when congestion sets in. This congestion may occur in only some of the lanes, whilst others may for a time move at faster speeds, in this case in line with the Highway Code, as long as you stay within lane, it is perfectly fine to pass slower moving traffic on the left, or undertake.What is not recommended is that you move over to the inside lane, which may well be clearer and pass everyone else at 70 plus mph. That would be at the very least careless or inconsiderate driving, and would probably be treated as dangerous driving. Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:59:22 GMT+1 lucyloopy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment796 "694. At 2:15pm on 22 Sep 2010, SussexRokx wrote:It's all very well knowing stopping distances, but being able to perceive that distance is even more important. How for example would you know if you were a safe distance behind the car in front, relative to the speed you were travelling?"'Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' (said twice in wet conditions). If you can't say that between the car in front and you passing a certain point, you are going too fast! Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:55:46 GMT+1 iKnappy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment795 500. At 6:19pm on 21 Sep 2010, Dai the Tie wrote:All bicycles should be taxed and their users licensed and insured.---------------------------------------------------Ok so all those low emmission cars should pay tax as well? because at present they are exempt.and the miss conception here also in your post that it goes to building roads, not really it goes to paying for the can't be arse to work to bulding a nuclear submarine. It's a tax a ripoff tax from the government another well thought out way to take money from your pocket, like council tax, fuel tax, VATax etc etc etccomprende? Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:22:59 GMT+1 ExLibrarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment794 Msg 791 in_the_UKI'm with you on Speed Cameras. I'm dubious - to say the least - of the motivations behind their deployment, I think they're dangerous because of the hard braking involved and I don't think they work anyway. I think that a policy of high viz police patrols in all speed controlled zones would be far more effective. After all, you might well take a chance on a camera being switched off, but you're highly unlikely to take the same chance if there's a Jam Sandwich about.I also don't see the point of the clutter, - as you say it can hide things like speed limit signs. A clearly visible 30 mph speed limit sign leaves no margin for error - and no excuse!!! Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:15:19 GMT+1 imustbeoldiwearacap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment793 781. At 10:15am on 23 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school officeDepends on yours and the courts definition of "Congested". The man on the Clapham Omnibus would say, that if in lanes 2 and 3, albeit travelling at 60/65 mph, vehicles were less than 2 cars length apart, then the lanes are congested! Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:08:49 GMT+1 iKnappy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment792 The driving test has never been much good in this country, and the driver training has always been geared to passing the test.being taught parrot fasion along the standard test routes for weeks on end doesn't teach you anything.However if they picked places at random and let them get on with it the true state of their driving skills would show, and they would learn far more and develop far better driving skillsAnd parking is one of my biggest issues, why don't they teach it properly?The whole point of driving is that you are going somewhere to park, you just have to go to any shopping centre to see the mass of wasted car parking spaces because they don't have a clue how to park a vehicle.The test and testing procedure is unfit for purpose in my view, and should be re-designed.Another thing, do they teach them what the red light really means, or are they teaching them you can squeeze at least another 3-4 cars through?and don't get me on about roudabouts and indicating, i think they have dropped that section altogether from the test.I think indicators will not be put on new cars in the near future due to evolution, don't know if its me but some models of cars the indicators have become so small you can't see them flashing when they have their headlights on. Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:07:52 GMT+1 ichabod http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment791 Test message to HYS admin..Fault yesterday ....."you have already made this comment".This also happened a few weeks ago Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:57:47 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment790 790. At 11:28am on 23 Sep 2010, Wyn wrote:Msg 787 in_the_UKI agree that there's far too much 'street furniture' as they quaintly call it and signage on the roads. There have been several items on various news programmes about over the past couple of years. Nothing much been done about it yet though.However, having said that, I'm still of the opinion that - re warning signs such as speed limits anyway - the guys who decided on imposing them are likely to be better informed that I and I think we should stick to them.--------------------------------A lot of the time I will agree with speed limits but the example I gave shows areas which are excessive to the extreme. Particularly 6 speed cameras which follow on from each other (they are also painted green and stand with trees). I assume they are speed cameras as my sat nav points them out (they are tall things).The thing that shocks me is how safety campaigners will fight for speed restrictions but not fight to remove the "street furniture" which hides or obfuscates the limits.I have only been done for speeding once. My sat nav allerted me to the camera, I slowed down and both me and the nav thought it was a 40mph road. Yet the 30mph sign was among many others and I obviously missed it. I had driven the road before (a few years ago) and the limit had been changed. Because I was driving slow because I was unfarmiliar with the area and I automatically hit the break for the camera (regardless of my speed) I was only a couple over the limit. But I was lucky Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:55:51 GMT+1 ExLibrarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=91#comment789 Msg 787 in_the_UKI agree that there's far too much 'street furniture' as they quaintly call it and signage on the roads. There have been several items on various news programmes about over the past couple of years. Nothing much been done about it yet though.However, having said that, I'm still of the opinion that - re warning signs such as speed limits anyway - the guys who decided on imposing them are likely to be better informed that I and I think we should stick to them. Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:28:15 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment788 785. At 10:52am on 23 Sep 2010, SussexRokx wrote:776. At 09:25am on 23 Sep 2010, AM wrote:--------------------------Let's get something straight here, in a 30mph zone, the MAXIMUM speed you can travel is 30mph, it is NOT against the law to travel below this speed at, as you say, 25mph. Time you took a re-test, methinks.-----------------------------In 30mph zones I will drive 30 if I am confident in my reaction times (almost always) and I apply that to all roads so I agree with you on that. However when I see someone driving 20-25 I dont trust them at all because they may be having a bad day, they may be incompetent.If anyone routinely drives much slower than the limit (5mph+) then I would recommend they get checked out. If they dont have confidence of their ability to handle their vehicle at required speeds that suggests they are not confident in the safety of their driving. Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:24:26 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment787 781. At 10:15am on 23 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school office.----------------------------------------The interesting thing here is, what the Highway Code says and what the law says.The Highway Code advises that you should not pass on the left, the law however says nothing, there is no actual law stating that you cannot pass on the left...You could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving, depending on the circumstances, such as speed, but not with "undertaking"...Unless, that is, you're pretending to be a funeral director... ;o) Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:12:25 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment786 783. At 10:39am on 23 Sep 2010, Wyn wrote:Msg 776. AMRe 'a 30 mph road'I think you'll find that speed limit signs are an indication of the MAXIMUM speed you're allowed to go at, not a MINIMUM. There are road signs for minimum speed limits (usually but not always blue background) but in my nearly 40 years of driving I've seen very, very few of them.Otherwise I think you're meant to drive at a speed which YOU- as an individual - consider to be safe in the prevailing conditions. And if that different from the guy behind you - TOUGH!!!--------------------------To extend the concept of safe driving, I do laugh when speed cameras everywhere is considered safe. Even for the best of drivers the first thing you do when you see a camera is look down at the spedometer.Not advocating dangerous driving but I would like to see a huge reduction of superfluous signs which make driving harder, less traffic lights and 1 way systems. Basicly I would love to see the roads ment for travel again instead of trying to cause problems for drivers.To make my point these are the problems in my area->Road markings and signs are different>on a dual carrageway, at the lights to turn right a sign tells you "to be aware of oncoming traffic". Really!>at a roundabout a sign tells you "when lights are off. give way" (something to that effect). Who doesnt know this?>clusters of traffic lights for various roads. Which one is yours? Who knows (lot of people get stuck here). To make it worse the various signs and traffic lights are knocked round (assume vandals) so point the wrong way!>near here on a steep incline/decline (depending which way your going) there are 6 YES 6 speed cameras, one after the other on a wide 4 lane road (2 each way) with houses on 1 side set back well away from the road. The limit is 30mph.Terrible road planning like this causes problems for various drivers and for people who dont know the area its worse. Most cars here have bumps in them and the drivers spend so much time trying to navigate (satnavs get lost here too) that I have nearly been killed numerous times. Sometimes by aweful drivers, sometimes because they are trying to cope with abysmal road systems.I will also mention that the weather here is pretty good and have yet to see much rain or fog that could affect driving. If bad conditions occur I dont even wanna go out. Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:09:17 GMT+1 drcarol http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment785 Here we go - more nannying. I agree that young male drivers may need protecting from showing off and speeding. Part of the problem is the cost of insurance. When I passed my test (years ago), you had an old banger (roadworthy-ish), that would have collapsed in a heap if you'd tried speeding. You rarely drove at night (in case it broke down again and you had to walk home). But it was mine. I looked after it and saved up for something better. More expensive, but easier to insure because I had driving experience. The prohibitive cost of insurance means that parents put kids on their insurance and let them drive their cars which are sometimes far too powerful for an inexperienced driver. Of more concern to me is people driving around who haven't passed their test, no MOT, no insurance. Get them off the road. And perhaps people who come from abroad (and don't even drive on the same side of the road as us), should have to pass a test and exam that makes our driving laws clear, before they can take to the road.Even though I'm getting older, I do think that older drivers should be tested after retirement. Perhaps if there are medical problems, driving times to avoid rush hours or after dark if eyesight is not 100%. However, the biggest problem that has to be solved if any type of restriction is to work, is that there has to be viable alternatives - ie public transport must be improved. No-one who has had the freedom of a car is going to want to lose it at any time, unless the alternatives are there. People do live out of town, the loss of local shops and the need to journey to work just are not catered for anymore - and given the coming cuts - these issues will not be resolved.So put up or shut up. Thu 23 Sep 2010 10:02:35 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment784 776. At 09:25am on 23 Sep 2010, AM wrote:What a complete bunch of ‘wet fish’ on this site – So much concern about speeding but it’s your concern that makes people even angrier. Yes, you drive at 25 Mph along a 30 Mph road but the law states 30Mph so get your bloody foot down on the pedal.So how you going to in-force this new law? How you going to stop young people drive at night. The police can’t even stop them driving before they have past the driving test. Plus what happens in winter when it goes does not get light till 8:30am and dark at 4pm? If you can’t see this is completely a stupid idea then you are all fools.--------------------------Let's get something straight here, in a 30mph zone, the MAXIMUM speed you can travel is 30mph, it is NOT against the law to travel below this speed at, as you say, 25mph. Time you took a re-test, methinks.As for night driving, whether you agree with it or not, the criteria would be not that it is dark, but the times the young driver curfew would be imposed, e.g. 10pm to 5am. Regardless of whether its dark or not... Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:52:04 GMT+1 Lorne2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment783 Deserve? No one deserves a licence, surely you have to earn one...The issue is that once you have one, you have it for life, so while you may have obtained one with good driving, you can over time start driving like an idiot, and there is no way to take the licence away until the damage is done Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:43:19 GMT+1 ExLibrarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment782 Msg 776. AMRe 'a 30 mph road'I think you'll find that speed limit signs are an indication of the MAXIMUM speed you're allowed to go at, not a MINIMUM. There are road signs for minimum speed limits (usually but not always blue background) but in my nearly 40 years of driving I've seen very, very few of them.Otherwise I think you're meant to drive at a speed which YOU- as an individual - consider to be safe in the prevailing conditions. And if that different from the guy behind you - TOUGH!!! Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:39:27 GMT+1 ExLibrarian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment781 Msg 719 quake.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.I hope your post is a mickey take but just in case it's not, let's take your points one at a time shall we?You were in the middle lane of a motorway when a car undertook you at 70 mph. Why were you in the middle lane. If a car was able to undertake you at 70 mph+ (in the driving lane) it would seem to indicate that you had no business being in the middle lane.Secondly, you decided to 'enforce the law'. I'm afraid that, AFAIK anyway - outside of the very specific and restriced circumstances of 'Citizen's Arrest' - 'enforcing the law is none of your business. You then decided to move into what you call the 'fast lane' on what you call 'your' motorway to continue what you deem to be your 'lawful behaviour'. Firstly, - the middle and outside lanes are not 'fast' lanes - they're 'overtaking' lanes. Secondly, - it's not 'your' motorway, they belong to everyone who pays taxes and roadfund. Thirdly, your behaviour was not lawful, as it was obviously possible to do well over 70 mph in the inside lane (by your own admission as cars were undertaking you at 70 mph+), that's where you should have been - until you needed to overtake. Have you not seen any of the Public Information Films about lane hogging?You're making a big leap (of the imagination?) in your last paragraph aren't you? Speeding = pushing drugs and benefit fraud. I think you need to apply 'Occam's Razor' here (i.e., the simplest explanation usually applies). This would indicate a bunch of irresponsible idiots choosing to flout the traffic regulations rather than a bunch of gangsters speeding from A to B.I repeat - it's not your job to enforce the law. That's up to the police - who are more likely to nick you for lane hogging if you continue in the same vein.You should do what do. I learned 'Defensive Driving' 30 odd years ago and practice it to this day. Assume that every other driver's an incompetent maniac, drive as if they're out to get you, and just bite you lip and let the idiots get on with it. The last bit's hard - but necessary for survival. Remember, if you deliberately get in their way and they hit you, you'll end up just as dead as they'll be. Or, - if you're really unlucky - you'll be dead and they'll get away with cuts and bruises.Advice? Calm down dear! Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:31:23 GMT+1 ThankyouandGoodbye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=90#comment780 770. At 07:55am on 23 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Hi again imustbeoldiwearacap,Thanks for the reply. The whole point of the rule is that it applies, as it states quite clearly, in "CONGESTED" conditions.Traffic traveling at 65mph cannot be described as "CONGESTED". Reasonably free-flowing I would have thought.The motorway has to be nearly at a standstill for undertaking to be legal.Ask at any driving school office. Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:15:08 GMT+1 Val http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment779 Given the number of moving violations I see every day on the streets of London, I often wonder how some of these people passed their tests to begin with. It's not just young people or new drivers that cause the problems - it's also long-standing drivers who think it's OK to:1. Floor it whenever they get a clear stretch of road with no traffic, irrespective of the posted speed limit.2. Rudely ignore older people or parents with young children trying to cross the street at corners with no lights, or at zebra crossings.3. Jabber away on their mobiles while driving (because nobody ever seems to properly punish them for doing it).4. Fail to signal turns, even though there are other drivers on the road, and pedestrians trying to cross the street, both of whom would appreciate knowing if they're about to be hit.5. Let their kids ride unrestrained in a moving vehicle - unforgiveable.As a final note, maybe we should ban new drivers from owning scooters. While I realise that, for many new (responsible) drivers, this is the only affordable option, it does cause problems, at least around my neighbourhood. Ever had to listen to the high-pitched whine of scooters whose (irresponsible) teenage drivers don't appear to know what a gear-shift is for, whizz up and down your street incessantly for six hours? Ever watched in horror as these same young lads pop wheelies in heavy traffic? If you have, you'll understand what I'm on about... Thu 23 Sep 2010 09:10:37 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment778 Whatever your age or experience/inexperience - a vehicle is a means to get from A to B. It's recognised, that when driving, people behave in a way toward others - they perhaps wouldn't in other circumstances as they are in their own IMMORTAL metal 'bubble'? If you don't care about others' safety OR even your OWN - just remember the consequences to your own loved ones when they are informed by the police that YOU died in an RTC?Recommend post #740 @ 8:00pm on 22 Sept - 'Dai the Tie'. The majority of which should be part of the written driving exam for new drivers and the rest of us too - complacency or rising to the bait of a coward in car - just keep focussed and keep safe. Thu 23 Sep 2010 08:46:29 GMT+1 jamesev http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment777 At 7:31pm on 22 Sep 2010, RTFishall wrote:I'm a 64 year old driver and I just love slowing down deliberately when I see a boy racer speeding up behind me (you know the type, baseball cap and sun glasses etc).What makes this so much fun is that there not bright enough to cotton on that you are doing it on purpose! Also, being slow to pull away at traffic lights. All great fun! lol ============So you play "games" on the road with other road users? Maybe you need a road refresher test as, although you aren't using the road as your own race track you are using it as your own playground.Lets hope that should you be late for an appointment you will be tollerant with people that are infront of you that slow down deliberately. Thu 23 Sep 2010 08:41:48 GMT+1 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment776 758. At 00:04am on 23 Sep 2010, Joe wrote:517. At 6:49pm on 21 Sep 2010, Dai the Tie wrote:OK, so who's going to pay's for cycle paths and lanes if it's not going to be the cyclist, then? Oh, and by the way... Your motor/personal insurance picks up the cost of you using emergency vehicles if you're in an accident, not road tax or ones council/personal tax. One other thing if I'm going to "nitpick" bicycles need to be designed for safety, what about that cost coming into your equation? No, I guess not, bicycles are just magically designed without any costs involved.............................................................Wow, I can see this debate is going nowhere (so much for open-mind). Just to answer your question (again), road tax, council tax, amount many other forms of tax pays for the upkeep of roads. Yes insurance pays for emergency response break-down vehicles (with government subsidies of course). But they do not cover road maintenance, emergency services, speed camera's etc, this is all funded by the tax payer, you (hopefully), me and everybody else.And since we're still splitting hairs, I would like to remind you that roads existed long before cars ever did, and bicycles occupied those roads before cars were even invented. Who paid for the roads then? I doubt they magically appeared.---Dear Joe. Just learn to accept my side of the argument and I'll learn to accept yours. What could be simpler? Thu 23 Sep 2010 08:30:58 GMT+1 AM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment775 What a complete bunch of ‘wet fish’ on this site – So much concern about speeding but it’s your concern that makes people even angrier. Yes, you drive at 25 Mph along a 30 Mph road but the law states 30Mph so get your bloody foot down on the pedal.So how you going to in-force this new law? How you going to stop young people drive at night. The police can’t even stop them driving before they have past the driving test. Plus what happens in winter when it goes does not get light till 8:30am and dark at 4pm? If you can’t see this is completely a stupid idea then you are all fools. Thu 23 Sep 2010 08:25:02 GMT+1 jamesev http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment774 At 4:21pm on 22 Sep 2010, quake wrote:Classic example last weekend. I was in the middle lane of the motorway when a car undertook me at over 70mph (I know this because I am particular about sticking to no more or less than exactly 70mph on the motorway). Shortly after that another criminal undertook me. And another one. All within about 10 minutes of each other.So I thought, time for this citizen to enforce the law, so I provided proper indication and gently pulled out into the fast lane, continuing to maintain a decently legal 70mph. It was a sign of the times that just about every illegal lawbreaking driver that came up behind me got incensed at my lawful behavior as they obviously wanted to travel above and beyond the 70mph limit. Inevitably they all chose to undertake me and made repetitious and illegal use of their horns.Well I put my foot down (not literally, I continued to maintain a lawful 70mph) and refused to budge for 18 miles. If they want to travel at 80mph, or God forbid - 90mph, then they can just go and do it on another road in another county. Not on my motorway thank you very much.If more drivers were like me and helped to enforce the legal speed limits on their local roads there would be less problems on the roads and less accidents. Most of these illegal drivers are probably also pushing drugs or benefit frauds anyway - wonder where they are going so fast? It helps fight crime in general if they know they can't get away with it.================================Not sure whether this is serious or not but if it is....From the highway code...Motorways (253-273)Lane discipline264You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.So while you adhered to 261 (70mph limit) you failed on use of the highway under section 264 as a number of road users were able to pass you in the left lane.Maybe YOU need a refresher test on use of the highway Thu 23 Sep 2010 08:22:15 GMT+1 R http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment773 What a stupid idea. The whole idea of learning to drive is so that people aren't restricted in where they go or when. What about new drivers who work late and need to drive home? What about those genuinely responsible drivers? It's much like the minimum sale price of alcohol - punishing everyone for the wrongs of few.Call my ideas radical, but how about giving 'night-time' lessons? Thu 23 Sep 2010 07:49:55 GMT+1 Fatbob70 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment772 This post has been Removed Thu 23 Sep 2010 07:41:32 GMT+1 darkvalleysboy1978 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=89#comment771 What terrifies me more are the elderly. They are barely able to see 5 metres in front of them and I dread to think of their reaction speed. They pass their test at 17 and never checked again.Everyone should do a refresher exam every 5 years to ensure eyesight, reaction time and driving skills are up to standard. It's scary to think your driving licence has no expiry date. Thu 23 Sep 2010 07:35:52 GMT+1 barryp http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=88#comment770 Several of the younger people that I worked with would have come within the 'night time driving ban' as suggested. That would have been half of the night shift at the Police station, many of the night shift nurses, half of the ambulance crew, and so on. As with so many 'Safety reports' this one is ill thought out. A night ban will only apply to the thinking driver , those most at risk will continue to ignore unenforcable laws.The need is for a proper driving test, one that requires a night-time test, and a longer more intensive daytime test. A move away from a right to a licence to a licence only by tested ability. Thu 23 Sep 2010 07:07:34 GMT+1 imustbeoldiwearacap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=88#comment769 736. At 7:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, onlyMEE wrote:693. At 2:03pm on 22 Sep 2010, imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:If only we could get rid of the "car in top gear, mind in neutral" driver.-------------------------------------------- Hi imustbeoldiwearacap,I agree entirely, but I don`t quite know how to break this to you politely. Sorry.You describe how you passed vehicles for , what was it, 2.5 miles on their nearside in lane 1, while they were going slower in lanes 2 and 3?That is NOT "quite legal", in fact it is most definately ILLEGAL.It is called:..................."OVERTAKING ON THE INSIDE"You seem to be confusing things with the allowance to do this "WHEN THE TRAFFIC IS TRAVELLING SLOWLY"Which means when ALL the traffic is travelling slowly. The operative word being:............................SLOWLY60-65 IS NOT "TRAVELLING SLOWLY".20 mph or less could be described as "travelling slowly".Your final comment is also one I agree with entirely:"However, there is more danger from the complacent "experienced" drivers who thinks they know it all".Yours, ............An ex-instructor.I do not know how to break this gently!!!!Rule 268 of the highway code!Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.Yours "someone who has read the highway code since passing his test" Thu 23 Sep 2010 06:55:29 GMT+1 Simon Davies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=88#comment768 It is easier to destroy than create. There is always some committee somewhere who wishes to destroy the freedom of individuals.Such proposals would penalise the young drivers who behave and drive safely. They are treated as guilty before the offence has taken place. Thu 23 Sep 2010 06:44:07 GMT+1 nsefan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=88#comment767 It would probably reduce the death toll a bit by reducing how much younger drivers can use their cars. Then again it would probably reduce road deaths further by not having cars at all!Whilst such measures have good enough intentions, they would be difficult, costly and time consuming to enforce. I'm 19, but don't intend to learn to drive just yet, mainly for concern for the safety of myself and others! Thu 23 Sep 2010 06:33:45 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/do_you_deserve_a_licence_to_dr.html?page=88#comment766 Ooooh yes, and a test for getting into the car, and having the" right" mental attitude and a whole BUNCH of other patronising junk all at a charge of, oh lets say £400 for now, renewable every 3 months of course....If you are genuinely that worried by accidents and death just walk, ok? Thu 23 Sep 2010 05:57:48 GMT+1