Safe Speed Forums

If we mix NCD into the equation it becomes unfair. If a driver ends up having a claim for a non fault accident (as so often happens) then it shouldn't affect his driving record - it's bad enough that it has to affect his insurance.

If his driving in the accident situation was bad enough to warrant losing him some driver points I think we need a prosecution to back that up - if no prosecution then just the punishment of loss of NCD seems fairest, as at present.

I really wouldn't want the insurance industry to have a hand in qualifying drivers - they have far too much inherent power now, given the potential for corruption and greed within the industry. If they could put points on your licence the money making opportunities for them would be endless!

I agree absolutely!

Give you personal experience. as you all know the WildCat (wife) experienced ultimate of no-fault crunches, which landed her in ICU for months, wheelchair for quite some time, followed by extensive physiotherapy. Once recovered - she then redid her RoSPA, and her retraining was, in fact supervised, by the BiBs in the family, myself and the road safety nerd!

Insurance? We had legal battle which went on for years. This revolved around whether or not the bloke who had the fatal behind the wheel died before, after or during the crunch

Whilst they decided all of this - we were landed with huge insurance premiums - despite fact that she had redone the RoSPA and achieved Gold status with absolute ease, redone her advanced motor bike test, and played around on the skid pan again! Of course, part of the premium was due to NHS refund for the ICU etc - because NHS is entitled to claim cost of treatment - which we always do as we are strapped for cash!


So perhaps subjectively - I would not trust insurance industry as far as I could proverbially throw them! Give them the chance to make money - and let's face it - some companies cannot wait to up your premium for a 3 points for slight blip - and they will! They are businesses after all - and their aim is profit. Give them a say in qualifying drivers and we would be screaming FLEECE far more loudly than we are with the scammers!

Need to check this out with "In Gear" and the family "Beagles" - but currently drink driving carries automatic ban for 1 year - and dependent upon the Mag, amount of alcohol in blood stream and circumstances of the offence , they can place you on the drink drivers' remedial course (Manchester/Lancs) which includes COAST, hazard perception, speed awareness and drink/drugs course at 9 months stage. Have, in fact, been involved here - Second/third offences carry longer ban - two-five years and even jail. So we have some remedy already - but this does not stop the hard core drinkers form driving whilst disqualified, and even under JT's fairly logical system - we could still find these people continuing to drive their turbo charged motors without the proper licence.

Again we are back to our trafpol numbers problems!

Maybe the penalty points for drunk driving could be 90, so regardless of pre-offence score you'd be knocked back to between 0 and 10 and off the road for a while. This would be at or below JT's threshold for a provisional license, but I don't know if it's worth getting banned drivers to do the L test again. Since the penalty points define the ban and vice versa they'd be set by the magistrates and expire at the same time, though it might be an idea to only get 25 or so back at the end of the ban. That'd prevent someone with 40 or so points before a ban ending up with 90 afterwards, and would also force banned drivers to do some work to get back to where they were before.
A simpler alternative would be that a drink driving conviction automatically lowers your score to 0 for the length of the ban after which you get, say, half your old points back. Either way I'd want to see drink drivers have to put some effort in to restore their license back to it's original condition.

Edited to add: Whoops, I've been beaten to it. I didn't notice there had been another page after SafeSpeed's post. Believe me folks, my observation is better on the road, honest.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

No not offended at all Was just mooching some ideas together as we keep being told that "retests/ assessments cost money and there is shortage of examiners"- blah -blah -blah!

Of course these idiots in charge are just that - idiots! Proof is in pudding when we see safe drivers penalised for very trivial overspeeds - which are only just illegal and are not at all dangerous at time of offence, a doctor facing penalty points because he pinged a scam whilst en route back to save a patient's life (still being contested and he will send his dodgy 34mph NIP when his lawyers have finished with it! ), news item on the PH site in which drivers get tickets for margianlly exceeding the posted limit on clear road, dry conditions at some god-forsaken hour in the morning!

Of course - we come up with the ideas - but ideas need analysing, refining, costing, fine-tuning before they become reality and launched into public domain. That is why we need to think of interim treatment to "save lives" using available remedies whilst we develop the new medicines to cure all ills!

Easy tiger/tabby (delete as applicable) you'll give yourself a furball. I do agree though. If testing and licensing is to be overhauled as completly as we're talking about here the insurance scumpanies should be kept well out of it. If the industry wants to use a driver's current score as part of their risk assessment that's fine, and not a million miles away from what they're doing already. But that should be the extent of their involvement. If we've learnt one thing and nothing else from scamera partnerships and the hypothecation scheme, it's that road safety and business don't mix well.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

The Mad Lad himself - I have changed all my codes so that WildCat cannot access - though cannot guarantee it. At moment she is on PH winding up her fave copper. She keeps calling him "Liebchen" (sweetheart). Turns out he checked it out on Babelfish, mixed up his letters and thought she was calling him her "little string vest"!


But both of us develop bad case of "yowls" and claws always come out as we know that profit always comes before road safety and quality of life - (and indeed NHS budgets (sighhhhh!) do impact on my professional decisions too! )

Ah! That is what I like to read! Cheers mate!

But because of redeployment and over-indulgences in scamera presence - not as many of us around as previous. So perhaps our mad Doc has point with his "quick fix" whilst we get things back to normal.

The trouble with the re-test is numbers involved - (and I note some of you have suggested someone like me should assess qualified and experienced drivers - except that there are simply not enough of us to do this! ) But nice to know you like us deep down - though you would not say same thing when I criticise your driving and tick you off for some misdemeanour! Funny thing driving - only thing that people do not like criticism over - the teachers in the family reckon it is pyschological defence mechanism because - deep down - we know we could hurt someone by our actions! Perhaps!

We should insist on re-test for all banned motorists - even those banned under totting up! As Gatsobait suggests - this would prevent over clogging up in the system. The re-test in these cases should be made extremely tough to pass as well!

Think the Mad Doc (and not out of family loyalty) makes fair point when he suggests utilising ADIs to carry out a periodic skill assessment. Naturally, they would have to undergo very stringent training but this could reduce pressures and create jobs in the driver training industry. ADIs are used in the speed courses which are springing up in the Pratnerships as alternative to points. So they do have part to play in all our "retrain thinking caps!" Assessment could still be graded as insurance and powerful car carrot - same as JT's staged licence idea, and poor assessment will mean a corrective training and a retest.

Yes - people will moan that it will cost. But were the driving lessons and test free in the first place? We know that many on this forum have paid for voluntary training anyway! So - problem is - the hard sell to the public!

Basically - we need to think how we can use and improve existing resources - and then move forwards - retaining the proven bits and adding refinements!

Make it too harsh, too stringent, too expensive and we are back to the "Unfair and fleece" resentments.

That's why we need more trafplods, well one more reason anyway. I've met several and all but one really were human (the exception being the jobsworth who tugged me because he said he couldn't see my tax disc, which was displayed in the normal place BTW, and then decided that while he was there he'd check lights, tyres and so on. He looked quite upset when he couldn't find anything to give me a ticket for - suppose there'll always be a few like this who give the rest a bad name).
Depends whether you let me off or not.
We pay a hell of a lot more in motoring taxes than we get back. If the government made more of a contribution more motorists would accept paying a nominal amount, but of course that revenue is propping up low taxation in other areas and helping to fund non-transport related services and projects. And yet the system needs to be affordable to the poorer sections of society, or we'll simply get more people opting out and driving illegally. Tricky.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Ok, here's today's installment!

I'm very heartened that my original theory has posted so much positive comment and debate. I must confess it wasn't entirely off the top of my head, I've been mulling over such an idea for months, but this was the first time I attempted to commit it all to paper (ether?) as a cogent plan.

To deal with a couple of "matters arising"...

Firstly, lets completely divorce this plan from anything to do with speed cameras or debates on current enforcement techniques, and consider it in isolation. The fact that law enforcement has being misdirected and is becoming ineffectual as a road safety factor should NOT be used as an excuse to avoid improving other areas that might have a beneficial effect, such as training and licencing strategies. (I realise there is an immediate problem with any benefits being maliciously attributed as due to speed enforcement, but I have a solution for that too, in a moment). Reforming training and licencing could clearly save a great many lives, and regardless of our views on law enforcement we shouldn't miss such an opportunity.

Secondly, there is clearly a massive logistical problem with rolling out a scheme of this nature. So lets not do it all at once. Stepped licences, so why not stepped implementation? What if my new system were introduced (initially) for new licence applicants alone? Remember that it wouldn't necessarily be a negative, as learners can opt to take the "numpty test" (probably want to think of a better term than that...) at similar cost to present, if all they want to do is get on the road on the cheap.

But if they want to gain cheaper insurance, a bigger buffer against disqualification, and permission to drive fast cars then they have to undertake the more stringent test after much more training. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

This way we would be specifically targetting our new training regime at the road users most likely to be at risk from inexperience and lack of training, and we'd be spreading the introduction of it over (possibly) the next 60 years! Furthermore, we'd be able to split accident stats demographically and see whether holders of the "new" licences had a better accident rate than holders of the old one. This would be concrete proof of it's effectiveness (or otherwise), would completely divorce any improvement from other means, and hopefully provide the justification for further investment to accelerate the implementation.

And to clarify on the D/D thing, I think -100 points which then come off at 20 a year is about right, and there would be no limit to the "negativity" of the score, so if you do it again whilst DSQ then you get a further -200 or whatever, but it wouldn't necessarily come off any quicker.

And all of this would have no effect on current ideas about custodial sentences.

Discuss...

I don't think that last bit is true - if we made motoring half as expensive some of those who now work on the fringes of affordability would simply be replaced by still poorer people working on the fringes of affordability.

The only way it would work is if the new "fringes" group is smaller than the old "fringes" group. Actually I rather expect that the new fringes group would be rather larger as motoring falls vaguely within reach of most of the income support people.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think we're approaching the same point from different directions, and my winge about taxation didn't make the point very clear . I believe any significant increase in annual motoring costs for the average driver should be avoided, not only because it costs enough as it is but also to prevent the so called motoring underclass getting any larger. And it's true that without the ability to make motoring free there'll always be someone who can't quite afford it and be tempted to avoid the system altogether. What I was saying is that the costs of any new system really ought to come out of the vast amount we're already paying. How to persuade the government, any government, is another matter. Ideally it should be centrally funded enough so that drivers going for a re-test could just pitch up, hand over fifteen or twenty quid, and that's it for another five years or whatever (oh, and do the test as well of course ). Adding £4 or £5 a year to current costs is pretty insignificant I think - the tax increase due in the autumn will add more to motoring costs than that. And £5 is about what a gallon of fuel costs to those of us who still don't think in metric. Most drivers could save more than that each year by learning to drive slightly more economically.
Another thought along the same lines has just occured to me - say I've decided the system has got so expensive it can go stuff itself, my car's now uninsured and improperly registered, and I get my MOT and tax disc in dodgy pubs. If the cost of legal motoring came back within my reach how likely am I and others like me to come back into the fold? (That's a hypothetical, in case InGear is about to phone Thames Valley and send 'em round for a word with me ).

Okay, so if I got convicted on a score of 40 I'd go down to -60 and effectively have banned myself for three years? But if I'd started with 100 I could be back on the road again in a year, even if it was the same level of blood alcohol, same bit of road and so on. Or are you saying that the duration of the ban would be up to the magistrates using the same criteria as they have now, but that it would take five years of keeping my nose clean to get back to where I was pre-ban?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

The -100 points +20/year was a "base" figure, and I agree that Magistrates should have the power to increase or moderate the severity of the punishment depending on circumstances.

But the whole point of my system was to incentivise training and good driving practice, hence the "privilege" afforded to those with a high point score. If a spin-off is that the better driver can get back on the road sooner after a ban then so be it. He'd still not be able to drive his Porsche again for a few years after that, so in some ways the 100 point drop would be as bad to him as to anyone.

And remember of course that the guy with the 35 point score who gets a DD conviction can of course opt to take training and re-take his test, thus improving his original score and getting his licence back as quickly as the other guy. So everyone gets the incentive really.

Erm, think I must have misunderstood part of it. Does the current minimum 1 year ban remain and only then can he start retraining to get his points back? If not, what prevents him from doing enough refresher course and advanced training to whack his score back up really quickly and getting back in his Porker? I'm just pointing out a possible criticism from the antis if it appeared that those who can afford it were able to buy their way back onto the road. Personally I can see an argument for allowing someone who's just made a one-off stupid mistake to be able to redeem themselves at their own expense, though I still think that there must be a minimum ban.
Sorry, Gatsobait has his stupid head on today (late night and early start). If I got banned, could I retake my test, do some advanced training and get back on the road in a month or two?
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I'm thinking about the deterrent value of bans. I don't drink and drive because it's dangerous and stupid, but other than that the risk of a big fat ban is the main thing that keeps me from taking the chance. That deterrent might already be shrinking as some drivers are weighing up the chances of actually being caught with fewer trafplods around. If it were possible, even in theory, for drivers to effectively control the duration of a ban by the amount of retraining they're willing/able to do, how would that affect the deterrent value?
On the other hand, if you're saying that banned drivers basically have the same restrictions as learner drivers for a minimum period, but in the meantime can retake their tests and get the points applied at the end of the suspension I can see the benefits. In which case forget about the last paragraph, okay.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.

Ok, two examples.

1 is "advanced" driver, who has done well in his test and scored (say) 90. He gets caught speeding and gets 100 penalty points, so his net score is now -10, or +10 after 1 year. After 2 years it's +30 at which point he gets his licence back. The best he could ever hope for by re-taking his test would be to improve his original score from 90 to a potential 100, so he couldn't make more than 10 points difference by doing so. Even so, this might be worth doing if he felt it would get him back into his high performance car a year earlier.

2 is "mediocre" driver, who only has 40 points to start with, so when he gets caught DD he drops to -60 and is a full 5 years away from getting his car back. HOWEVER, he has the potential to retake his test and improve by up to 60 points (from 40 to 100), so there is a very strong incentive for him to do so as it might make 3 years difference to when he gets his licence back.

So in practice, there is a very strong incentive on the poorer quality driver to go and get further training to "catch up" with the advanced driver. Which I think is exactly the sort of thing we need to be doing to improve driving standards.

To take a less extreme example, lets say someone with 50 points gets nabbed for DC&A when plod catches him lane-hogging and / or tailgating on the motorway. The penalty is (say) 20 points so now he's down to 30 points, BUT he can immediately opt for more training and re-test to improve his original score. If he does so by 20 or more points then he's wiped out the effects of his penalty in the most positive way possible. Indeed, when the points are later removed he has benefitted from the whole exercise as he's now moved up the ladder.

The more I think about this the more I like it! I'm really in favour of the idea of motoring ability being treated as a continual process, which this system would encourage.

That seems a bit harsh, so I guess we're still talking about boozy drivers. Right, thanks. I think the penny has finally dropped, so let me see if I've got this right one last time.
The penalty points are sort of parallel to the driver's score, in that they remain until expired whatever the driver does. Our hypothetical Porsche driver could retake his test, ace it, and up his score to 100. But the -100 penalty for drink driving still stands so he'd still only be on 0 for the rest of the year, 20 for the next year, 40 the year after and so on. He still faces a ban, plus the indignity of having to drive his mother-in-law's gutless old Fiat for a while afterwards until he's allowed back in the Porker. But he has reduced his gutless old Fiat time a little by doing the retake.
Any chance you could disguise yourself as Alistair Darling?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Sorry - of course I meant DD not speeding!

In an ideal world. But jails already full to bustin'....


Firstly, my recommendation to all and sundry is not to even touch one drop. Metabolisms vary and many make mistake of having one drink followed by soft drinks, girlies in particular drink white wine spritzers and real twazaks corrupt their soingle malt with water! However, drinking on empty, mixing alcohol with soft drink - worst thing you can do ever! when you combine wine spirits in particular - but beer (shandy/ lager and lime/lager and black - urrgh!) - the 90% alcohol intake flows straight through stomach wall and into your blood stream very quickly, and actually takes longer to flush out of your system. You can be over the limit far too quickly by doing this.

Too few are aware of their body's metabolism anyway. Two years ago - nun stopped at red lights. She did not go through on red - but she stopped her car just over the white line. Unfortunately, jobsworth BiB at Xmas was behind her. He breathalysed her and she was 1.5 over the limit. How come? She had been to a Christening and drank half glass of champagne! Not much! But not being used to booze, not having eaten anything beforehand, being of slight build.... alcohol in the drink went straight into her blood stream. Had she eaten something beforehand - perhaps she would have got herself home in safety before it took any effect. She received the standard 12 month ban and training offer at 9 months.

Again - this must be part of the education package we are considering - along with effects of medicines, driving whilst under the weather etc, etc.


The Mad Lad himself!