Safe Speed Forums

I'm bringing up an actual situation described by a guy in a porshe on this very forum (who when challenged about how ridiculous his speed was famously replied "not in a porsche it's not").



Well you see to me I think the guy in the porsche is 110% to blame there if anybody pulls out in front of him, at those speeds it's highly likey when they checked their mirrors (yes presuming they did) that they didn't even see the fast moving car becuase it was so far back.

Numpty drivers are easy to avoid, you stay away fro them; the guy doing a tonne and a bit might knock out five or six cars if he loses control, with incredible violence and energy.

Numpty drivers are hardly likely to pass a driving test if they had to take one today, so how can they be regarded as "harmless"?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If a driver doesn’t check his mirrors and indicate well in advance before he pulls out, I don't see you can blame the aproaching car. Nowadays most experienced drivers end up having to compensate for people who don’t care about how they drive. (numpties)

Edited to correct quote marks.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I've seen a numpty driver cause an accident; they are emphatically not harmless. She did the classic 'pull out in front of someone and then go slowly' trick (another numpty fave) and someone went in to the back of her in a big way.

She told the first policeman on the scene that the other driver was going too fast (IMO he wasn't), to which the policeman replied "If he was, why did you pull out on him?"




It could be said that some elements of the driving style one is taught in order to pass the test are numptyish, and are swiftly un-learnt by most competent drivers. Example would be feeding the wheel 100% of the time. In fact some of the worst drivers I know are the ones that passed first time, oddly.

I don't necessarily agree with you. The problem with numpties is that they are unpredictable, so you never know what they're going to do.

100 plus mph is rarely safe except on a quiet DC or M/way, but I'd certainly rather be surrounded by competent drivers doing a few mph over the limit than incompetent limit limpets, which is what current road safety policy seems to be breeding.

The only misconception is that caused by labeling drivers with a term that is imprecise and misleading.
For example, if we use the "broken sidelight" standard, then I doubt there is a single one amongst us who
has not transgressed. Remember the words of Our Lord: Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!

Well, mine isn't relevant since it wasn't me that said that numpty drives should be removed from the roads. Looking at the lists of things on here that are signs of a numpty driver I'd say that in my experience (which of course you are welcome to question if you think it will help you) most drivers on the roads are numpties. Just taking indicator use and incorrect use of fog lights grabs about 1/3rd of the driving population.

So - should they have licences? Should they be taken off the roads? What can be done to improve the standard

Than, musing,
Maybe the fog light drivers feel that they have taken a conscious decision that driving with fog lights on is safe and that the limits set in law for fog light usage are too rigid?

But why do they often combine it with sidelights rather than dipped beam?

Agreed, there should not be anyone like this on the roads. Of course, you assume that the intention is that their licences be removed, when of course another way to satisfy the condition is by causing them to cease to be numpties. How? Education and supervision, with the first course of action on transgressing being an attempt to rectify, rather than knee-jerk punishment/revenue raising.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Who would pay for the collecting up and retraining of these drivers?

Are you implying that it is better to have an enforcement system of questionable value that raises revenue than one of certain value that costs money? Do you believe that we can put a price on a life?

'Education' doesn't have to be formal teaching, in a classroom or car with an instructor; if someone is pulled over by human-being police officers for a noted transgression/lapse then they can be re-educated right there on the side of the road.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Education could also be the sort of public information films that were common in the '70s. I bet every one old enough remembers "Clunk, click every trip", "Dip, don't dazzle" etc. The current "Think!" adverts would be better if they mentioned something other than sticking to the limit.

We frequently DO put prices on lives, thank goodness. This allows us to save more lives.

We must never be tempted to waste the limted resources at our disposal on the least
cost-effective measures. We must always implement the most cost-effective measures (i.e.
the cheapest) first.

PS: I'm saying this, not to make a stink, but because it prevent futile suffering. If you
don't put a value on a life, then you could expend the entire budget of (say) the
NHS to save one life. That's an extreme example of why the "you can't value a life"
argument is so dangerous. Let's be rational, and do more good. That is what Our Lord
would have wanted.

Does anyone know how effective the 'courtesy cops' of the 1950s were in influencing driver behaviour?

If we had traffic police that stopped people for most of the things discussed above it would come out of the police budget, we have paid for the roads to be policed already. I'm sure that other people of interest to the police would become apparent in doing this.

As for retraining, we have to pay an annual charge for our vehicles to be retested each year, so if you're caught doing what we have discussed there could be a system where every one has to get above 75% of questions right in a the highway code and depending on what they have done, has to sit a test relating to their mistake. Surely better to accept that peoples driving standards are different and that people make mistake and then the rectify the mistakes, than just dishing points and fines.

No, I'm asking who would pay for the collecting up and retraining of these drivers.

e.g. in your example who pays for the extra police and how much would it cost?

I'd expect that initially there would be a sort of pump prime expense needed, which could be reduced a bit after a few years.

We have paid for the country to be policed. I'm not aware of any specific way that we pay for the roads to be policed, even on private toll roads like the M6?

I think that's a good point. You probably also remember that you shouldn't use a lilo at the beach!

Think ads - don't they include 'Think Bike' and 'Think before you drink before you drive' or are they different campaigns?

Far more tax is collected from motorists than is spent on the roads, use some of that.

I think you make a very good point. It's often said that the NHS, or health care in general, is a black hole for money. But a balance has to be struck between health care and what we, as a nation or individuals, are prepared to pay.

If I had the money, right now I would spend ~£1600 on my girlfriend to get her an MRI scan for possible cancer, but we just don't have it. (Instead she has got to have a cheaper alternative 'inspection'). Naturally, we are very worried. It evokes very bad memories for me. It's the not knowing which is really hard at the moment. I’ve found out an MRI scan is £800 per section; the sections are head, chest and abdomen. If I’d had the money at the time, my mum would have lived for many years more, so would my brother...

I'm sure we would all love more scans, checks and medicine because after all - prevention is better than cure. The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that it’s exactly the same with motoring IMO. If they really wanted to make our roads safer they could double or quadruple traffic police but since no-one is going to pay for it, just like health care, it’s a compromise. Speed cameras are a relatively cheap, and bad, substitute for traf pol and other real safety measures.

It isn't just about a price on life but what we are prepared to pay for better?

What I used to like about the Liberal Democrats was there honesty about taxing us more for better health care*. If we did a poll here and now asking would you be prepared to pay more in tax to bolster the NHS and safer roads, who would really subscribe? I know I would, for one.

*Edit to add: I know talk is cheap when you stand no chance of getting in

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.