Iain Young

But that means that you need more police as well to enforce it. How do you know that the driver is the owner of the car and the superlicense holder? What if a superlicense holder gets into a hire car?

Too many loopholes to be workable I think...

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Not really, it's no worse than the situation with insurance right now. Just because a policy exists (in my name) which covers my car, doesn't mean that I'm necessarily insured to drive any other car to which I might have access, nor does it mean that anyone else driving my car is also insured.

Iain Young

True, but how many police are currently there out there actively looking for people with dodgy insurance?

To implement another new set of rules when there isn't the infrastructure in place to support the rules we already have seems doomed to failure....

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Well, yes - but that's a separate problem. I'm a firm believer in acknowledging and rewarding the benefits of better driving - just look at the relative rates of accidents that involve IAM members compared to the national average.

Compare and contrast that figure with the average reduction available to IAM members in insurance premiums. Wonder why so few people bother to take an advanced test?

Iain Young

I do agree with you, however the statistics don't really mean a lot. People who join the IAM tend to be more careful drivers anyway and so are less likely to be involved in accidents whether they were members or not.

The trouble with a license like this is that anyone can drive well during the test, but that doesn't mean they have to drive well once they have passed. It's a difficult problem, and I'm not sure what the solution is.

I asked, and there is no reduction for IAM members on my policy. That's one reason why I haven't bothered applying to join them...

Spring Heeled Jack

Always amuses me when Iain claims statistics are worthless and then goes on to make up a succession of ‘facts’ based purely on his own opinion. He did exactly the same thing yesterday.

I’m afraid that unsubstantiated statements of this sort go straight into my ‘waffle box’.

Iain Young

What facts are those then? I wasn't aware I had stated any facts, or even any statements that needed substantiating. I was just simply pointing out that the things other people were saying as fact, simply are not.

Statistics don't mean much as with the right bit of juggling you can make them prove anything you want. 93% of all statiticians could tell you that

And you never answered my question. What car do you drive then?

mattstant

[QUOTE=celticpilgrim]Matt,

That probably goes for people who don't mind folks buying scoobs, 'cos they're nice fun cars, etc., but do object to them being driven like a tw*t 2 inches from their bumper!!!

QUOTE]
yes but my point was that a scooby weighs half the weight and can stop in probably half the distance therefore being slightly less of a danger to my own safety

Iain Young

True, but they are also capable of going faster, and so cause more damage that way. The problem here is bad driving, not the type of vehicle. If all cars were driven within their limitations then I don't see that there would be a problem.

hedgehog

I agree that the fundamental issue is bad driving and a lack of any encouragement to drivers to improve.

However, to assume that someone who drives a certain type, or make, of vehicle might be a worse driver than average is a house built on sand. What is to stop some organisation painting all Subaru drivers as "bad drivers" because they drive 4WD vehicles with the capability of exceeding 70mph? In truth that is exactly what the administration in association with a range of anti-motoring organisations are setting out to do. They are literally going to pick us off one at a time until all we are allowed to drive is the "Party Car" which will resemble something from Stalinist Russia but with many, many more safety and control features.

It is also interesting to note, though I take the point about stats, that white van man, who is often painted in a less than positive light, is 13 times less likely to be in an accident with a pedestrian than a bus driver per mile driven. When you watch how the anti-car lobby sell us "friendly buses" while declaring all other drivers nutters you can see how perception can be used against us and can, in truth, be totally divorced from the facts.

Brendan Hughes

Not to be confused with car insurance groupings, which I always believed were based on the last few years' statistics about who actually had an accident and caused payouts.

speedking

Partly true, but also based on the cost of repairs, and replacement in the case of theft. Subaru premiums may be high because of increased theft, not accident record.

I believe that there is an element of 'ability to pay' introduced as well, you've got an expensive car so can afford the higher premiums

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Its a case of need versus want, nobody needs a 2.5 tonne discovery really, for towing horseboxes, so what, dont have a horse cos thats even more useless than the thing you drag it round in, nobody needs a horse, that again is like the Discovery, wanting one because you like them, all anybody needs is a moderate saloon or hatchback for most purposes.

I think there is almost an element of jealousy as well, o.e. those who can aford a big 4*4 annoy those who cant, despite the number of them financed to the hilt to run one, again all about want and image, vanity is the problem, the 4*4s have only got plush and huge because people want them, anybody twenty years ago had one by neccisity (apart from the odd Range Rover) and not for fashion because they were horrid, ugly, noisy and uncomfortable, some still are to a certain extent but people forgive them that so they can fit in.

We had an M class Merc, my father in law gave it us, it was like driving in boxing gloves and managed to be fairly slow and very poor on fuel, my wife hated it as she got approval from all the flash mummies at school who had them or aspired to them, i.e the kind of people we are talking about, i.e. anybody gets out of an X5 and whats the first word to enter into your head ?

Mungo

Like you police any licences. You can run the risk of having an unlicensed driver or vehicle. Okay until you get caught by doing something silly.
Othewise - vehicle manufacturer has to certify power of vehicle. Any mods need a DoT-certified rolling road certificate of the new power. Maybe you make it easy to identify by the nuimber plate - red characters or something.

hedgehog

This is dangerous ground though, I could argue that you don't NEED a TV or an internet connection. Does this give me the right to remove your personal choice to have something that you have worked for? Does anyone else in society have the right to determine what you are allowed to aspire to?

The idea that you can have nothing without a need and that society determines this need for you is communism but not even in the most restrictive countries which implemented this system did it ever get to the stage that there was no personal property and that all property was approved by the whole of society.

It is interesting to observe that in our society the administration are issuing edicts on what people "need." There is no question that you have a valid point and that those trying to control access to 4WD vehicles are setting themselves up as judges of what others "need." Large vehicles such as that are an easy target for a jealousy (as you point out) and class war, just as fox hunting was turned from a cruelty issue into a class war, and this is an old tactic of the far left. It is also a tactic that leads to a totalitarian state and I am of the view that this is something that we neither need nor want.

r32

Ive seen some official report that listed the most dangerous vehicles for pedestrian collision, apparently there was not one 4 X 4 in the top ten. I'll try and find where this was. But like speed kills it shows that the facts are sadly badly distorted.

NotoriousREV

Forget it, this argument doesn't wash with Scoobynet. Remember the fox hunting debates? As a reflection of public opinion: if it doesn't affect me, it isn't important.

FACT: The Government set themselves a precedent by forcing the anti-fox hunting legislation through.

FACT: The anti-4x4 lobbyists are vocal and beginning to get their voice heard in the media

Where will it end? Once 4x4's are banned or severely restricted by heavy taxation what will the next target be? Performance cars, without a doubt.

And once we're all in our average power, average size rep-mobile we'll all be controlled by ISA.

Don't think it can happen? Don't be so sure.

hedgehog

I had forgotten to get back to this, the number of KSI is actually around 35,000. So 20 KSI is actually 0.057%. This is well down in the noise and I have no idea how any statistical method could detect this level of variation and then attribute a cause to it. About 141 people die each year putting on their trousers, stastically speaking, and as far as I am aware trousers are one of the few things the administration don't plan to ban. In fact if you go out without them you could be committing a crime.

GCollier

Hedgehog,

Some of the links you post are interesting, but you're just as guilty of selectively quoting/manipulating/abusing statistics to suit your own agenda as any administrative body.

Your continued use of extrapolation (road pricing --> Stalinist police state) is wearing a bit thin too. I'm sure you could turn an innocent comment about shooting stars into scaremongering that a huge asteroid is on collision course for the earth.

Gary.

StickyMicky

your freelander takes up more room IMO
when you open your rear door to put the shopping in you need another parking space just to get the "practicle" rear door open for starters

hedgehog

This is of course the danger with figures and statistics, once you make them public other people will look into them as well and they may not come up with the answers that you would like to media manage to the fore. We often hear that road deaths decrease by "40% at camera sites," for example, but to the logical mind this may fail to explain why the actual total number of deaths on the roads in the UK are on the increase despite there being literally thousands of cameras.

I like to be able to support statements and arguments and also to let people reach their own conclusions. As an alternative I could take the other approach which is to call people names, make snide comments about the occasional typo and make statements backed up by catch all phrases such as "as everyone knows..." (I'm not trying to imply or hint that you take this approach, just pointing out that it is the alternative to trying to find scientific data to support an assertion)

You can also hardly claim that I have quoted selectively from the article I posted at the start of this thread, because I posted all of it. Ben Webster (I can't cope with that, he is a jazz sax player!) has a duty as a reporter, as I am sure you are aware, to include balance in his items and he would be in deep trouble if his facts were unfounded or he were to leave himself open to court action on account of his reporting.

If you have an interest in the potential impact of the new technological control measures about to be imposed upon the motorist then you could do worse than read the information available concerning ISA on the Leeds University web site. You may also care to consider this in light of recent appointments in roles directly related to transport as it is clear that many of these people have a distinct bias against the private motorist and this has been openly stated in some cases. Red Ken is, perhaps, the most well known but there are others with perhaps greater power and an even more anti-motorist outlook now in place in many areas.

As for shooting stars, well I don't have much concern in that area because I keep a close eye on the facts and the latest statistics and scientific data relating to the subject. This allows me to make an informed and intelligent judgement of the likelyhood of an impact upon the earth. Using such data, in the face of media stories for example, is important to enable us to see the truth. This site is worth a look for the latest info:

http://www.spaceweather.com

Brendan Hughes

Does anyone remember Mr Logic from Viz?

OllyK

The same way that low power motorbikes for younger riders etc is policed

Iain Young

Ah, so you mean it won't be policed at all then.

OllyK

Pretty much, so much of the licensing aspect of things relies on random occurences, i.e. a policeman (person ) being around when you happen to do something odd, for them to then stop you and ask questions.

We need better driver training - period
We need more police officers on the roads - looking for potentially dangerous activities rather than blindly enfocing speed limits.

Lum

What you fail to realise is that after banning those lot, they'll have to find a new target, and it's pretty likely to be sports cars, which will include Subarus, on the grounds of environmental damage.

It's called "divide and conquer" by turning us against the 4x4 lot they can get rid of them quite easilly, then they can turn the rest of the motorists against performance car drivers and so on until the only cars left on the road are Fiat Cinquentos and then they'll ban them since everyone else does ok with public transport.

We may not like many 4x4 drivers (I certainly dont) but there's a far bigger issue at stake here and I think we should defend them.

mattstant

pretty much my point in the first place

big heavy car + bad driver equals big heavy accident

fast light car + bad driver equals higher speed accident

But as "statistics" show the vast majority of accidents happen at lower speeds so my point still stands a heavier vehicle is duty bound by Newtonian law to create a bigger mess more of the time.

I hasten to add i have no particular gripe against big 4x4s as bother my brother and father have whopping 4.8 ltr Grand cherokee overlander jeeps

Perhaps there should be extra driver tuition like the voluntary lessons for some high performance cars ???

CLSII

Divide and Conquer.

Divide and make a hell of a lot more revenue.

Lum you hit the nail on the head!

03-CTR

i don't have a big problem with 4x4's but there is one thing that you cannot escape and that is the damage caused by a collision.

the most simplistic equations are energy = 0.5mv² (mass x velocity squared) and force = ma (mass x acceration). bull**** equations aside this makes 4x4's extremely good at mashing stuff up so regardless of how speedy a scoob etc is, given a collision at 70mph the scoob will always have much less energy to deal with and will experience far less force on impact (as will the poor sod that you collide with).

having said that it's be interesting to see the ratio of performance car crashes to 4x4 crashes.

SPEN555

FFS!

Bring back the green cross code man.

Brought me up not to run into the road.