tony de wonderful

Honestly, what a bunch of sad people?

DYK

The 70mph limit has been ignored for sometime.
Its driver awareness and being more patient on the roads that will reduce accidents.

One of main problems i find is impatient drivers.They will do the most stupid things to get a few vehicles infront.Suddenly slamming on the brakes in the middle lane to jump into a gap exiting a jnc etc is common because of a que.

Now they say the reason why no motorway test is in force is because of the remote parts of the country where it would take miles of travel to reach a motorway to be tested.I can understand that in some very remote parts of the country.But everywhere else you should be made to do a motorway/expressway test before getting a full driving licence.The pass+ for example.So you take your test for driving on normal town suburban roads,then something like the pass + should be made compulsory,that you do expressway/motorway driving before you get a full licence,rather it being an optional choice.any vehicles 1ltr should be banned from motorways.

Scooby Jo

I think a full licence should exclude driving on motorways, thus if you need/want to use motorways take the passplus and if you don't, then you still have a full licence.

I was on a 2 lane stretch of motorway today and watched a guy "mirror signal manoevre" a few times to the 2nd lane, not once did he take any notice of what was in that lane, and narrowly missed a couple of cars Some people just don't understand how to drive on motorways

corradoboy

20 zones by schools are a brilliant idea, at 830-9am and again at 3-330pm. At all other times they are often ridiculous. The restrictions, regulations, laws and penalties are always targeted at drivers, but decades of statistics prove that in the vast majority of cases, KSI's involving pedestrians are usually the pedestrians fault. It is very rare any pedestrian is run over on the pavement, or even on a crossing. They are usually found to have stepped into the path of moving traffic ! The front cover of the Highway Code states 'A Guide for Pedestrians, Cyclists, Drivers and Motorcyclists', and yet, after being a driving instructor for 5 years now I am yet to meet a client who has ever seen a copy prior to trying to learn to drive. As parents, why do we all just hope our children survive on the nations roads until 17 ?

I would like to see the HC split into two versions, one aimed at children focussing more on pedestrian and cycle safety, taught in schools and combined with the Cycling Proficiency Test, and under 12's restricted to max 30mph roads. At 12, an advanced CPT along with a cycling based hazard and theory test should open up the road network to those passing the test and acquiring compulsory 3rd party insurance. This would mean the second stage drivers HC and tests could omit the pedestrian and cycle info, allowing for more focus on driving subjects.

Given that motorcycles make up less than 4% of road traffic, yet account for almost 50% of road deaths, again it seems ridiculous that we allow 16yo's on motorbikes. Most scooters with 'L' plates I see are ridden in the most stupid and senseless way by idiots who see them as a new 'toy' to 'play' somewhere other than the BMX park. I'd like to see the motorbike age requirement 21, and 25 for sports bikes.

MattJ85

iTrader: (3)

Totally agree - the amount of cocky 16 year olds being ***** on their bikes amazes me - suprised the majority arent written off within days !!! wonder how much their insurance is !?!

Leslie

Good answer Dave.

Les

PaulC72

We insured our daughters ped for £200 this year.
she has always been a sensible moped rider as we said she would be banned from using it if she wasn't. now she s 17 she is leaning to drive and the moped is going as there is a car waiting for her to use

Brun

But how many of this 50% are people under 20? Lets not forget that any sort of accident involving one of our 2 wheeled friends is massively more likely to cause a fatality than in a car.
It would be interesting to see some figures for the average age for a bike fatality. I think it would be a higher than that of a car due to the number of born again bikers taking their shiney new R1's into a tree.

rabbos

Aren't most of bike fatalities caused by drivers not seeing the bike, and therefore independent of rider age?

The statistic regarding high fatalities in comparison to cars is meaningless as the biker has virtually no protection, so always come off worse. To illustrate my point, wear some metal trousers with airbags and punch yourself in the knackers. Now remove the trousers and repeat.

DCI Gene Hunt

80 +10 here

GlesgaKiss

It's a personal decision to ride a bike though. And I'd guess the majority of those deaths do not have any serious impact on anyone else. No offense intended, but it's not really your place to dictate what age a fully grown adult has to be to ride a bike. 21 is old enough to be considered an adult and capable of making such decisions for yourself. It's not everyone's wish in life to live theirs with the minimum possible amount of risk.

corradoboy

Actually, the majority of bike fatalities are solo incidents, where the biker makes his own mess. The second largest proportion are proven to be the bikers fault.

Someone dictates that you have to be 16 now, and 17 for cars, so it is not without precedent to have an age restriction. The right to use the queens highway is controlled by the testing and licensing authorities, and they are free to change the rules with the approval of government with reasonable justification.

andythejock01wrx

Dave, where are you getting your info on who was/was not at fault for various types of accident?

Not disputing, just would be interested to see them.

cheers,

Andy

corradoboy

DFT Motorcycle accident Database....

Rider 754 42.1%
Unclear/combined 165 9.2%
Other/not known 48 2.7%
Driver 788 44.0%
Pedestrian 35 1.9%

So I was wrong But it's pretty close.

http://mile-muncher.co.uk/dft_rdsafety_035422.pdf (2004 document).

tony de wonderful

Let's just ban motorbikes then? After all it will 'save lives'?

Next ban booze, ban swimming, ban DIY at home?

Ban, Ban, Ban....!!!

andythejock01wrx

N-o-o-o-o-o!

tony de wonderful

Modern culture denies individual responsibility. Only the paternal state/bureaucracy can decide what the individual can do, should do.

It's funny because the other side of the 'human rights' discourse is that of human responsibilities being take away.

It's all a transfer of critical power away from the individual to the state.

urban

iTrader: (1)

You'll probably find that your speedo is over reading anyway - maybe not as much as 10%, but it won't be far off it.

Leslie

The thing that annoys me about the 20mph limits is that around here, in many places they have been instituted in places where they just are not necessary and that encourages people to break the law of course and causes unecessary delay. I am all for restricting speed in places where it really is necessary, but doing it in the way they have in so many places engenders lack of respect for the whole idea.

Les

GlesgaKiss

Yes, they dictate based on the fact that you are still a child below that age. Everything the government does has 'reasonable justification'. I'm telling you I don't agree with that, and I gave you the reason: namely, that I don't want some bureaucrats to be able to arbitrarily decide it's for 'my own good' not to do something I enjoy. There is no justification in my eyes, even if it reduces casualties, which it obviously will. So would ordering everyone to stop many other things which place them at an increased risk over just sitting on their **** having a totally dull but safe, mollycoddled existence.

No ta!

TelBoy

I reckon 90 won't become the new norm.

1. It will be policed more strictly.

2. For the majority of people, 80ish is fast enough.

3. People can't afford the petrol.