Driving

[icemaiden]

Driving while using a mobile phone (not hands free btw) is kinda illegal just now. If a policeman felt the need he could pull you over for using it and have you charged with dangerous driving (or a charge very similar i forget exact details) There was a story about a year back i think about a woman that got done for having a drink of pop while waiting at a red light, bit harsh imo.
Although by the end of the year as Gumbo said driving whilst using a mobile will have it's own charge.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Will
From what I can make out, you are a right-wing liberal, which means you believe in a weak government when it comes to business and individual rights, but tough on crime.

Political compass should give you more of an idea of what I mean.

I did start this but got bored on pg3

 

[kameleon]

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

I am practically ghandi!

 

[pcg79]

-6 -2

 

[r32]

Speeding doesn't kill. Home Office figures suggest that Excessive Speed is a factor in less than 6% of accidents. But of course you never hear about this, as the very same government are trying to gain more acceptance for their cynically postioned revenue generators. Innapropriate use of speed does kill, but the good driver knows when it's safe to drive fast and when the best idea is to slow down. The good driver matches speed with visiblity and road conditions, if the road is empty and well lit, then the only thing which dictates maximum speed is the road itself. This seems to be a foreign concept to many of you. I guess it must be because you don't drive. Might also be the reason why some of you think running amber lights is illegal. It's often the safest thing to do.

A couple of things aimed at those of you who have nice cars and appear to be determined to enjoy them:-

1) Speed cameras are set at the speed limit plus 10%. So doing 55 in a 50 limit requires no braking for cameras. Some forces even add another 2-3 mph on on top. Also, Gatsos cannot take a picture of an oncoming car, so there is no need to slow down for them going the other way. If people round here acknowledged that, traffic would move a hella lot smoother.

2) If you want a deristricted motorway, just travel north of J31 of the M6. Contrary to what Tom says, many stratches are perfect for 3 figures + and there is very little to no police presence.

 

[Ch3tan]

Not all speed cameras give you 10% leniancy, there are areas with less tolerance.

 

[Durzel]

Originally posted by r32
Speeding doesn't kill. Home Office figures suggest that Excessive Speed is a factor in less than 6% of accidents. But of course you never hear about this, as the very same government are trying to gain more acceptance for their cynically postioned revenue generators.
<snip rest>

Amen to that man.

 

[Will]

Originally posted by r32
Speeding doesn't kill.

Sometimes it does.

 

[Jonaldo]

Kinda makes you wonder though, if the law really is so worried about people speeding, why do they allow the manufacture of cars that break the speed limit and let them be sold freely around the country?

I know it would incense most drivers but surely if they wanted to stop speeding they could just either ban all cars that can break the speed limit or make it a legal requirement to have a limiter on your engine which prevents going over the limit. (admittedly this would cost billions and take years to complete) (also emergency vehicles should be excempt from such systems)


That said, they would miss out on god knows how many millions of pounds from fines and things if they did this and probably need the money to give their head staff nice raises every year.

 

[leggy]

A limiter at 70 is essentially useless. You can still drive through a built up area (30) at double the speed limit. And what about the germans?

Although I did hear the most recent lexus sports car was limited at 40 under its theoretical maximum. I doubt this had anything to do with the law though.

 

[Tom]

That reminds me of the time I took my car to the garage and complained about dodgy wheel balancing making the car vibrate at speeds of 80mph +

They said that I shouldn't be doing that speed, and therefore it wasn't really their fault. I told them that I bought a car that had a rated top speed of 125mph, and that if I wanted to do that speed, I could, and they should bloody well make sure the car was capable of doing what it should be.

They fixed it.

 

[old.milou]

...and don't forget whilst driving you may need the services of this geezer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3112670.stm

http://www.anglegrinderman.co.uk/

 

[r32]

Originally posted by Will
Sometimes it does.[/url]

I'm not even sure if I'd blame speeding in that case. The speed differential in a head on collison on a country road, even when both cars are doing the speed limit is still 120mph, which can easily result in carnage like seen there. I'd lay the blame more on the fact that one car was blatantly on the wrong side of the road, which is a bit of a prattish thing to do really, and the fact it's a notorious accident blackspot.

Ch3tan, the 10% rule is a legal requiement by the police to account for less accurate speedos, such as those fitted to older cars or to Fiats.

The speed limiter idea wont happen in a conventional sense. They would be too easy to remove, would force you to stick to 70mph no matter which country you were in, and would make overtaking on country roads dangerous (the last thing you want when trying to get past someone is the power to stop when you reach 70). There are mumurs of a GPS based system which could potentially be introduced once the prices come down, but I doubt that will ever see the light of day, considering the privacy issues.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by r32
Ch3tan, the 10% rule is a legal requiement by the police to account for less accurate speedos, such as those fitted to older cars or to Fiats.

Is it a legal requirement or is it just a practice employed by the police?

 

[Tom]

My speedo reads 3-4mph too slow.

 

[r32]

Originally posted by Cdr
Is it a legal requirement or is it just a practice employed by the police?

Twas a legal requirement last time I checked.

 

[old.ignus]

I can't believe what I've just seen. Britain's worst driver on chanel 5, why do those people have a licence? I think whoever passed them should be seriously checked up. I mean ffs how can people who can't change gear and are have difficulty moving through traffic seriously pass their test? It doesn't make sense.

 

[kameleon]

I gave my girlfriend friend driving lessons once.

It was going swimmingly until she saw her friend and decided to jump out while the car was still doing 25 mph

 

[sad_mung]

If you can't use a mobile whilst driving (which I whole-heartedly agree with) then neither should you be allowed to smoke whilst driving.

Or consume food.

In fact anything that requires you to think about anything but driving should be illegal.

 

[Jonaldo]

Watched Britains worst driver again tonight and erk! Feel sorry for the population of hardboard pedestrians in the world. Even the knowledge that their most prized posession is on a stand at the end of a test track, none could still do an emergency stop in time to avoid breaknig each one

Damn some people are bad bad BAD

 

[Tom]

Those tests are pretty fake IMO, nobody can stop quickly enough with the amount of space they're given to react, even at 30mph.

Its quite simple to me. If you don't pass on your 3rd attempt, you have to wait a year to reapply. When you do pass, you're tested again every 5 years. If you fail one of those tests, you can still drive, but must pass a test again within 6 months.

More money for the DOT, fewer knobheads on the road = win.

 

[Durzel]

I definitely agree.

I can't really bear to watch programmes like Britain's Worst Driver. Even with Quentins dulcit tones I just find myself getting enraged at the sheer incompetency of the people on there. If they were all just hopeless learners I wouldn't care, but its the fact that all of these people have a driving license that beggars belief.

In the previous series I wanted to drag that woman with glasses (can't remember her name, the one that ended up being "the worst") out of the car and just shake her to death. Literally. Watching her burning the clutch out in that car at the end, and hitting everything (including that cardboard cutout of a pedestrian) with zero awareness just made my blood boil.

In fact, I'm getting angry now just thinking about it.

Driving lessons, by and large, teach you to pass the test - not how to drive. Until that changes and something stricter comes in its place we're forever going to be blighted by incompetence of epic proportions on the road.

Its quite simple to me. If you don't pass on your 3rd attempt, you have to wait a year to reapply. When you do pass, you're tested again every 5 years. If you fail one of those tests, you can still drive, but must pass a test again within 6 months.

= ideal solution

 

[old.ignus]

Originally posted by Durzel
Driving lessons, by and large, teach you to pass the test - not how to drive. Until that changes and something stricter comes in its place we're forever going to be blighted by incompetence of epic proportions on the road.

Totally agree with you there, the whole test is a waste of time.
For a start they should get rid of the DVLA shuffle, how anybody thinks you have more control over the vehicle with this steering method is beyond me, because you've got no chance at low speeds without power steering. Reversing around a corner, pointless, and parallel parking has nothing to do with basic driving its more an advanced thing as most new drivers avoid parrallel parking like the plague.
Things like clutch control should be explained much clearer, when I passed my test I was working as a trainee mechanic and when one of the mechanics described how a clutch worked to me I understood from then on why I was stalling all the time. Basic maintenance of a vehicle, like checking your tyres for wear and psi, knowing when that clunking is the pad worn down not your shopping in the boot, and changing a tyre.
Maybe the test should comprise of a track day when you're under controlled conditions facing unknown obstacles followed by a day on the road where the examiner tests you confidence as a driver.

At the end of the day driving is about confidence, when I was learning I was a nervous wreck and often went wrong but these days I know I can drive, I consider myself a good driver and my proof is 6 years, no accidents (touching wood) and no points.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by old.ignus
I consider myself a good driver and my proof is 6 years, no accidents (touching wood) and no points.

Oh dear, you realise you've just cursed yourself?

 

[old.ignus]

I think you're right, do you reckon its too late to edit?

 

[Cdr]

Possibly, I'd have to edit mine tho.....

 

[mank]

Originally posted by old.ignus
Basic maintenance of a vehicle, like checking your tyres for wear and psi, knowing when that clunking is the pad worn down not your shopping in the boot, and changing a tyre.

They actually do this now, not sure exactly what it entails but it's basic maintenance and knowing where things are in an engine.

Originally posted by old.ignus
At the end of the day driving is about confidence, when I was learning I was a nervous wreck and often went wrong but these days I know I can drive, I consider myself a good driver and my proof is 6 years, no accidents (touching wood) and no points.

I agree, I've got past the making mistakes point more or less and it's not just because I've had more practice it's because I believe I'm a decent driver. I still make a few errors but I'm switching between two different cars and it'll be awhile before I can make that transition completely smoothly I guess

 

[Durzel]

The driving test (not the theory part) is by and large pointless really.

I can understand the need for the "emergency stop", but its basic common sense - plus its a flawed test. Since you're already half-prepared for it happening anyway it's hardly a valid assessment of someone's driving awareness.

"Reversing around a corner" doesn't go far enough really. When I was at University I used to get a lift in with a friend of mine. He simply could not reverse into a parking space, so consequently we would spend literally 30 minutes looking for a space he could drive straight into. As much as I think "reversing around a corner" has some benefit in the grand scheme of "car control" they should by all rights make learners go around a small coned course in reverse. Hitting too many cones = fail.

"Parallel parking" - another manueorve which just demonstrates car control and has little real World application. Incidentally, I think I've done a proper parallel park about 3 times in the 8 years since I've passed.

Same with "3 point turn".

Don't get me wrong - examiners obviously need to test car control, but someone being able to do a 3-point turn, or reverse around a corner or parallel park does not necessarily mean they are capable drivers.

If it were up to me I would rather see the test be a combination of the current theory examination combined with a visual "hazard awareness" test (that thing they have where you watch a rendered sequence and have to identify the possible hazards - kids running out, traffic lights, etc), basic skid pan training, motorway training combined and the normal "drive about town" test.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Durzel
"Parallel parking" - another manueorve which just demonstrates car control and has little real World application. Incidentally, I think I've done a proper parallel park about 3 times in the 8 years since I've passed.

I parallel park more or less every day, I'm very good at it, and its a skill that people really should learn properly. Its very easy when you know how, you don't even have to look over your shoulder. I have been known to parallel park into a space barely 2 feet longer than the length of my car.

 

[Gekul]

Originally posted by Durzel
"Parallel parking" - another manueorve which just demonstrates car control and has little real World application. Incidentally, I think I've done a proper parallel park about 3 times in the 8 years since I've passed.

Where do you live m8? In my part of London you wouldn't get far without it.
It would be nice if they could test motorway and night driving though, I agree.