Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2025 13:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 05:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 04:58
Posts: 45
BBC NEWS Here
BBC News - Nick Triggle wrote:
New driver restrictions 'would save lives'
By Nick Triggle Health reporter, BBC News

The number of UK road deaths has fallen to a new low. Newly qualified young drivers should be banned from night-time motoring and carrying passengers of a similar age, Cardiff University researchers say.
They said such "graduated driver licensing" for those aged 17-24 could save more than 200 lives and result in 1,700 fewer serious injuries each year.

Similar schemes already exist in New Zealand, Australia and parts of the US.
But motoring organisations say the limits - which could last up to two years - would be difficult to enforce.

The research will be presented at the World Safety Conference, which will hear from other experts on how road safety could be improved.
While road deaths have now fallen to an all-time low, 2,222 people still died on the roads last year.Experts at the London conference will argue this figure can be reduced even lower with more restrictions and greater awareness of risks.

'Wrong signals'
The Cardiff University study was compiled after analysing road accident data from 2000 to 2007.

Research suggests one in five new drivers crashes within the first six months. The Cardiff team says that by targeting them with graduated driver licensing, many accidents might be avoided.
Cutting the UK's accident rate would also save the economy £890m, the team estimates.

Dr Sarah Jones, who led the research, said: "Graduated driver licensing works in other countries and there's no good reason why it wouldn't work here."
She said restrictions on new drivers could be in force for as long as two years and could also include a total ban on alcohol.

But the head of road safety at the AA, Andrew Howard, suggested while there would be benefits to graduated driver licensing, they could be outweighed by the disadvantages.
He said it could penalise those who work at night and need to drive, while police may struggle to crack down on those who flout the rules.
"It would give totally the wrong signals to introduce new laws aimed at young people and then not enforce them - many would feel that all motoring laws could be broken," he added.

Music 'danger'
A spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also cast doubt over whether the scheme could be properly enforced.
She said she wanted to see more evidence about how it would work in the UK, adding that improving education and awareness with further training for new drivers might be more beneficial.

University of London experts will also put the case for more 20mph zones, arguing it could help reduce injuries - particularly in deprived areas.
Their research will show that those in deprived areas are twice as likely to be killed or injured than those in affluent areas.

The Department for Transport said most new drivers wanted to be responsible, but a small minority put themselves and others at risk.
It said a new independent driving element would be added to the current test, allowing candidates to demonstrate their ability to be safe in more realistic situations.
A spokesman said: "We are considering what other steps we can take to improve safety for new drivers.
"In doing so, we need to ensure we do not unfairly penalise responsible young people who rely on driving to get to work or college."

Meanwhile, the Tune into Traffic campaign group will stress the dangers of listening to music while driving and walking.
Tune into Traffic's Manpreet Darroch, who has helped produce an advert warning about the risks of being distracted by music, said: "This is of particular importance as the usage of iPods and MP3 players has significantly increased and young people's lives are being destroyed unnecessarily."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 08:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
What next? Ban over 40s from riding motorcycles as they are a danger to themselves on Snake Pass?

...and is it age we are talking about or period from test pass date?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 08:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
So how do you define "hours of darkness"? If it's when it's actually dark, such a restriction would prevent any recently qualified driver from commuting to any full-time job by car. And people doing shiftwork are likely to need to commute at any time of the day or night.

And would a restriction on passengers prevent a newly-qualified driver from taking her parents out for a spin?

The whole thing is unreasonable, illiberal and unenforceable. Sounds like typical New Labour legislation, then :P

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Just been asked to see if I want to anti- represent this for the Jeremy Vine show ... they are hoping to get the lady who wrote it on !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Well Claire, which side of the debate are you on? :)

I thought the idea of letting police use their discretion when they stop a young person late at night was out of step with the black and white way that speed is enforced now. It's OK to drive if you are going home from work in the dark but not just driving about for leisure. Totally daft!

Well Officer, I am on my way to the gym to train for the Olympics. Sorry son. that's leisure. You're nicked.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
You could modify the insurance: SDP and to and from a permanent place of work just changes to become SDP and to and from a permanent place of work between 0600 to 0000z !
That, along with an inbuilt gps based insurance "sensor" would enable the scheme....and do not Norwich union run such an insurance scheme ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I can certainly think of a host of arguments against it from all sorts of driver responsibility and experience gaining angles.
Certainly the freedom to work and function is clear. It does state young passengers (if the BBC is correct) but it is far too heavy handed as even the AA suggest.
This is over-restriction and instills fear and inability, far too 'controlling'.
I'd like to see the stats that they think make this 'safer' plus if they talk about Spain or France their daylight is a lot longer than ours esp in the south!
It's dark in Scot at 3pm in the winter but is 'daylight' on most nights throughout the summer - even at 8pm it is still 'light' at the moment so they could drive in different parts of the Country and if they travelled North on a good evenings light they could carry on as long they are travelling North!

It's unenforceable rules for the sake of rules. Most would just drive anyway and it would penalise most young drivers. Let's not forget too that most 'young drivers in the USA are 14/15 not 18 after all ! I don't know the ages of France /Spain .. have to go check.

The need to 'look abroad' does not necessarily mean they have it right for us.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
malcolmw wrote:
Well Claire, which side of the debate are you on? :)
I thought the idea of letting police use their discretion when they stop a young person late at night was out of step with the black and white way that speed is enforced now. It's OK to drive if you are going home from work in the dark but not just driving about for leisure. Totally daft!
Well Officer, I am on my way to the gym to train for the Olympics. Sorry son. that's leisure. You're nicked.
Yep it is non-sense. Graduated driving licenses - as they are calling it ! is one thing if applied 'correctly' but this is very different. One might call it young person discrimination even. Sounds to me like the Political Correct Police " Sorry son can't listen to that, that might distract you!"
That is an old debate when radio's were put in cars. Those who don't like to listen to things in cars don't. Yes I agree with guidence and advice and pointing out that they could be 'effected' but we have to let people take responsibility - don't we ? Where does that lead if you don't !
I see there is the agree to more 20mph which is a whole

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 09:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
A good opportunity to make the point that learning to drive needs to be seen as a continuous process, not a one-off hurdle. And we need more carrots and fewer sticks.

Obviously in a simplistic way, if you stop people from driving, they won't have accidents. But it restricts their learning opportunities and also – as a guy said on the radio this morning, there are very strong arguments against it in terms of social exclusion, as it may limit access to work and training. He also, although broadly in favour of the idea, very clearly set out the point that the principal way of improving your driving once you have passed the test is to gain experience of dealing with a variety of situations on the roads.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Agreed to do the show ... They are trying to find the Cardiff link to the original article which I want to see and they are to be on the show... (going to Inverness to the studio.)

Who was that and on what show Peter?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Who was that and on what show Peter?

Radio 5 Live just after 8 am – don't recall the guy's name.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:16 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
If young drivers are not allowed to drive it the dark how are they going to gain experience? From reports it would seem that most of the accidents occur on rural roads at night, but is that surprising? Driving tests are mainly carried out in town and urban conditions so most driver training takes place accordingly. Learner drivers need to have tuition under all conditions including driving in darkness and on rural roads, so they know how to use full beam headlights properly and be able to judge severity of corners. How often do you follow drivers on unlit roads with nothing coming the other way still using dipped headlights? This not only makes it difficult for them but anyone following wanting to overtake.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:57 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
malcolmw wrote:
not just driving about for leisure.

Maybe, that's the trick here. Social engineering - dissuading people from driving (something we already know Brake is totally in favour of, so not as crazy as it may seem). Its the thin end of the wedge!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 13:04 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I find it most heartening that most respondents in this thread (I don't know about whynot) aren't 'new drivers', yet are speaking up for them! :clap:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 13:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 04:58
Posts: 45
Latest press release below
Quote:
Young People Biggest Victims on Britain’s RoadsThe World Safety Conference, hosted this week by London, will hear that the financial costs of injuries to the UK are now £36 billion/year, of which £2.2 billion are direct medical costs.

Twenty thousand lives are lost [1] and around a million people are admitted to hospital unnecessarily every year in this country[2]. The World Safety Conference, which opens in London today (Tuesday 21st September), will hear road traffic crashes are the biggest cause of injury in the UK, with young people being the main victims. And those living in deprived communities are more likely to be affected than those living in more affluent areas[3].

Campaigners and researchers are calling for:

Increased awareness of the potential dangers of wearing headphones and texting while crossing the road
The introduction of Graduated Licensing (GDL) – new young drivers not allowed to drive at night, drink alcohol and drive, or carry teenage passengers
Increase of 20mph zones in areas where there are high rates of deprivation
Potential Danger of Wearing Headphones and Texting

Ninety one people are killed or injured on Britains roads every day, a third of those are under 25[4]. Twenty percent of road traffic deaths in the UK are pedestrians[5]. It’s thought wearing headphones and texting could be to blame.

‘Tune into Traffic’ is a campaign aimed at revamping the old Green Cross Code of ‘Stop, Look and Listen’. The Campaign has produced an advert that highlights graphically the danger of wearing headphones when crossing the road.

The advert opens with clubbers dancing to music, then cuts to the screeching of car tyres, the car smashing into a person, whose headphones drop onto the road next to an arm with the words ‘Don’t get lost in your music. Always take your headphones out before crossing the street’ flashing across the screen[6].

Manpreet Darroch from Tune Into Traffic says:

‘This is of particular importance as the usage of iPods and MP3 players has significantly increased and young people’s lives are being destroyed unnecessarily.

Young people up to the age of 25 are especially vulnerable because the hazard perception part of their brain is underdeveloped. As a result they are more likely to be distracted on the road. Educating young people on this issue is vital’.

Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL)

Crashes involving new young drivers are increasing at a time when road traffic accidents in Britain are going down. Every day four people are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving young drivers.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most parts of America have introduced graduated driver licensing (GDL) as a way of cutting down unnecessary death and injury on the roads.

GDL allows new drivers to gain experience under conditions of reduced risk. It does this by ‘adding’ an intermediate phase between the preliminary and full driving licence. During this period, which could last as long as two years, the newly qualified young driver is allowed to drive without supervision, but not at night and not with similar aged passengers. Also, he or she is not permitted to consumer alcohol.

A review of the evidence on GDL found:

16% decrease in crash rates for all GDL drivers in British Columbia, Canada
28% reduction of fatal or severe injury crash rates and 40% decrease in teenage passenger deaths and injuries in California, USA
23% decrease in hospital admissions following crashes in New Zealand
62% decrease in midnight to 5am crashes in Ontario, Canada
Research by Dr Sarah Jones at Cardiff University suggests the benefits of implementing GDL could save up to 200 lives every year, avoid 14,000 casualties, and save the UK £890million:

‘Most people in this country know someone who has been touched by the death or injury of a young driver. GDL works in other countries and there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work here. The cost to the NHS would be significantly reduced. And it’s not only lives that would be saved by having GDL – insurance costs should drop substantially if the number of crashes involving young drivers were reduced.’

20mph Zones

New data on 20mph zones shows pedestrians living in deprived areas of London are twice as likely to be killed or injured on the road than those living in affluent areas. Dr Rebecca Steinbach from the London School of Hygiene’s Transport and Health Group will tell Conference:

‘It’s children under 11 who are most at risk of injury, particularly in deprived communities. In London, extending the zones could prevent up to 700 casualties each year. Think how many injuries could be prevented if 20mph zones were introduced in all cities across the country.’

Over the last two decades London has implemented four hundred 20mph zones; 235 of them in areas of high deprivation.

Commenting Professor Sir Michael Marmot, author of ‘Fair Society, Healthy Lives’ and President of the British Medical Association said:

‘Traffic calming, like banning smoking in public places, cuts deaths and injury through its effect on people from all walks of life. Everyone’s health threatening behaviour is curbed and as a result everyone else is less likely to be hurt. But the less well-off would enjoy proportionately greater gains than the rich, as the risk of injury and death from road accidents are currently greater the less well-off you are.’


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Macrory I. Annual abstract of statistics. Cardiff: ONS 2009

[2] Hospital Episodes Statistics www.hesonline.nhs.uk

[3] Bellis MA et al. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2008; 62: 1064-71

[4] UK National Road Safety Charity Brake, 2007

[5] WHO, 2009 Global Status Report on Road Safety, p. 226 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 40_eng.pdf

[6] http://www.tuneintotraffic.co.uk/

Click here for more on conference


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 13:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I missed a few points, but later heard a chap call in an proof exactly what I had said that young drivers need the experience, he mistook a corner and crashed into a tree.

I wish that I had mentioned something that I have stated before that we need to encourage the interest in driving and nurture that enthusiasm than throw sticks at it ... I touched upon it but ought to have made the point better.

They believe that it might save 200 lives and that their research showed in this Country that there were more youngster killed at night than older drivers. This doesn't meant you bow to the 'effect' when we cannot distingush what makes it safe such as :
- the recession may discouraged older drivers to drive less & less often (exposure to danger is less),
- older drivers choose not use those roads at that time as they recognise it as a bad road at night,
- accidents might occur due to bad road engineering or repairs to damaged roads,
- young drivers in-experience and driver errors are never resolved by banning them - you just delay it and just move the goal posts,
- consequential effects from this might effect other driver areas over the years to follow,

If older or more experienced drivers can manage the risk and their experiences help them then nothing is gained by destroying the confidence of a young driver by telling them that they are incompetent in spite of passing the test.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 14:27 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Quote:
Increased awareness of the potential dangers of wearing headphones and texting while crossing the road

:clap:

Quote:
Ninety one people are killed or injured on Britains roads every day, a third of those are under 25[4]. Twenty percent of road traffic deaths in the UK are pedestrians[5]. It’s thought wearing headphones and texting could be to blame.

I should point out that the official government stats (table 4i, RCGB2007) states that pedestrian error (such as failed to look properly) is a contributory factor to 74% of pedestrian casualties, rising to 85% for child casualties. Hence it is right that something should be done in this area.

Quote:
Crashes involving new young drivers are increasing at a time when road traffic accidents in Britain are going down. Every day four people are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving young drivers.

A meaningless statistic.
Every day, at 70 people are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving drivers (table 4e, RCGB2008: K = 2,351, SI = 23,195; not all are analysed).
So 4/70 = 6.7% of KSIs caused by young drivers. Do young drivers account for significantly less than 6.7% of the driving population? (by distance travelled)

I did notice it said "Ninety one people are killed or injured on Britains roads every day", I suspect they meant 'killed or seriously injured'

Quote:
New data on 20mph zones shows pedestrians living in deprived areas of London are twice as likely to be killed or injured on the road than those living in affluent areas. Dr Rebecca Steinbach from the London School of Hygiene’s Transport and Health Group will tell Conference:

‘It’s children under 11 who are most at risk of injury, particularly in deprived communities. In London, extending the zones could prevent up to 700 casualties each year. Think how many injuries could be prevented if 20mph zones were introduced in all cities across the country.’

Is she implying that there are significantly more 20mph zones in affluent areas compared to deprived areas?

Quote:
Over the last two decades London has implemented four hundred 20mph zones; 235 of them in areas of high deprivation.

But, if there are so many more killed or injured in deprived areas, does that show that this scheme may not be as effective as portrayed?

Quote:
‘Traffic calming, like banning smoking in public places, cuts deaths and injury through its effect on people from all walks of life. Everyone’s health threatening behaviour is curbed and as a result everyone else is less likely to be hurt. But the less well-off would enjoy proportionately greater gains than the rich, as the risk of injury and death from road accidents are currently greater the less well-off you are.’

Perhaps because one 'deprived' walks and one 'affluent' is driven?
Perhaps because affluent areas have nice park and forests to play in, and deprived parks are no-go areas so play on the roads instead?

I'm not saying 20mph zones are a bad thing, but we must guard against rolling them out at the expense of addressing the root causes.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 15:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
jomukuk wrote:
You could modify the insurance: SDP and to and from a permanent place of work just changes to become SDP and to and from a permanent place of work between 0600 to 0000z !
That, along with an inbuilt gps based insurance "sensor" would enable the scheme....and do not Norwich union run such an insurance scheme ?



If memory serves -they stopped doing it .Can't remember the reason .Here we go back to the idea of banning something because it might not be safe .Why not have a minimum percentage of learner time after dark - strange idea ,isn't it - going back to the dark ages of driving ,when education was more in force . :wink:

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 20:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:26
Posts: 36
Location: UK
PeterE wrote:
So how do you define "hours of darkness"? If it's when it's actually dark, such a restriction would prevent any recently qualified driver from commuting to any full-time job by car. And people doing shiftwork are likely to need to commute at any time of the day or night.

And would a restriction on passengers prevent a newly-qualified driver from taking her parents out for a spin?

The whole thing is unreasonable, illiberal and unenforceable. Sounds like typical New Labour legislation, then :P


I am originally from New Zealand and under their restricted licence the hours of darkness is 10pm-5am, unless you have someone else in the car who has held a full licence for 3 years. You can not carry passengers unless they are your partner/spouse and or your Children. If you're under 20 years old, the legal alcohol limit is 30 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and 150 micrograms per litre of breath.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 20:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
There might me some sense is saying a newly qualified driver shouldn't be driving around with a load of his or her mates in the car, because they, broadly speaking, have been known to egg the driver on a bit. Not that we did that, obviously.

Buuuuut, we get told to car share, then someone passes their test, and car shares and what? Get's points, as to resit their test???

Don't drive in the dark, new drivers. Handy policy to get people used to driving in the dark. What about driving in the dark in a lit, built up area?

On the pedestrian thing and head phones. I walk to the shop with my tunes on, but am very aware that I can;t hear, so do extra lifesaver glances. I know a lot of people tha run with headphones on, which is borderline suicidal. When RTA's involving pedestrians/cyclists or other vulnerable road users are reported, it often seems to me that there is an undertone that the driver was automatically at fault. Maybe, if when such incidents occurred and it was the vunerable road users, it was reported that it was their fault, perhaps people would think more about being more carefull :scratchchin: . There seems to be a mentality, that it is always the drivers fault and they should beable to stop, even when they having got a chance of doing so.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.023s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]