Safe Speed Forums

I read stuff like this and it does make me wonder, and whilst it's likely that not everybody in the crash behaved stupidly, it's clear to me that anybody who contacted a car in front (that weren't shoved from behind) should just never be allowed near a car again:

One person has died and 10 others have been injured in a series of crashes in thick fog on a stretch of the A19 in County Durham.

The first crash, involving two petrol tankers, a lorry and a car, happened on the southbound carriageway between Peterlee and Wellfield on Friday night.

While police and fire crews dealt with the incident, there were two further collisions involving 21 vehicles.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8122092.stm

That would certainly end congestion. The majority of no-injury accidents are rear-end collisions.

_________________
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

It seems to me like you've never considered what might happen in a crash event.

Can it be that only 1 errant driver is needed to skew across lanes (for whatever reason) and take out a few other drivers who are driving perfectly? Do you think you could avoid a driver who swerves right in front of you and starts to brake as they did so?
Could a mechanical fault be a cause too? (one which an MOT doesn't test for, or an MOT tester could have missed, or had worn since the last test)

What about oil/derv spillage (very difficult to see on a wet road), do you believe you can perform an emergency manoeuvre/stop when caught on such a patch? Isn't this quite possible if there has been a crash? (be it a cause or effect)

This list of factors isn't exhaustive.

I do agree that those who are negligent could at least face a re-test, but to make such a blanket desire (as you described) cannot be reasonable.

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

I don't know enough about this incident, what caused it etc., but some people who have been repeatedly banned for DD, dangerous driving etc., should possibly be banned for life.

Well, a lifetime ban for driving while disqualified is going to be really effective, isn't it?

IMV denying someone any possibility of redemption whatsoever is almost always a bad idea. People can change and need to be given some incentive to do so. Even life imprisonment rarely actually means life nowadays.

_________________
"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

I posted some time back that there was some merrit in taking repeat offenders who drive when banned and train them to drive under supervision to a high standard. The reality is that they will re-offend. If the regain thier licences or drive wilst banned they will at least drive to a better standard. This is about rehabillitation rather than punishment. Accident prevention and protecting the public. You might even get them trained by others on community service themselves.

My friend who has a head on collision when she thought she was on a duel carriageway gor a day out with a copper on driving training and the result was a significant improvement. She was not a wreckless driver but needed to be taught how to be observant and more confidence.
She still cant borrow my car though!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Sorry, by DD I meant drink driving.

I think if someone is repeatedly banned, if not eventually banned for life then each time it should be for ~twice as long as before.

Your point about banning the disqualified made me think... is it possible to buy a car without a driver's licence? And should it be?

From any legitimate source, no, as you have to insure it.

But I'm sure the proverbial "man in pub" would happily oblige

_________________
"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

[pedant] The wording of all the policies I have ever had has been "driver must hold a licence to drive the car or have held and is not disqualified form holding or obtaining such a licence". I have often pondered the point of that wording. I think it is in case you forget to renew. And, of course you could be buying as car for someone else.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Many disabled people own cars and do not have a valid licence to drive. You must register a car in the diasbled persons name to get tax exemption.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I've never shown a licence when buying a car (second hand) and never shown it when buying insurance although I would expect the insurance computer system would show up if I didn't have a licence

_________________
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.

The insurance company don't give a XXXX whether or not you are legal - until you make a claim

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

We are in dangerous times where we have a new age attitude emerging where as long as you're driving really really slowly you can drive how the hell you like, "oh you don't have to check your mirrors / watch the road, bump into people, because you're driving slowly so you won't hurt anyone", now before someone elaborates on the "no-one gets hurt" bit, isn't it beside the point that an accident could happen (not referring to previous situation re A19 crash) through sheer negligence of basic driving skills and car control?
As I've said before, the majority of (very) slow drivers I come across would fail a driving test on, not just their speed, but observation, anticipation, courtesy etc. And equally the drivers who boot it around tailgating, jumping red lights, intimidating other drivers, poor observation, no courtesy etc.
More thorough and advanced training is required. Perhaps have new drivers after a year of driving undergo more advanced training when they understand driving more.

Is it really? I don't actually think that's true. There is an emphasis on speed kills by the government and a few others, but I don't think it's becoming the prevailing attitude. I haven't even noticed it becoming more common. What I do notice is far more people driving too fast (for the conditions, not speeding), and general bad practices. I'd say the biggest problem is lazyness, bad attitude and over confidence.

I do agree that more training is needed. I'd like to see something that focuses on attitude for new drivers.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Oh trust me it is becoming more and more common, the standard of driving has dropped dramatically in the last ten years....which just happens to be the length of time that speed cameras have been about...makes you think doesn't it?

_________________
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.

95% of injury accidents on motorways are rear-end collisions. I can't see the surprise in this can you?

I counted and examined the collisions on the motorway in my area to get my figure; where did you get your gem from?

Why are you restricting it to bans for those offences?

Is there a reason why most non injury and injury accidents shouldn't be rear end shunts? That would suggest that most accidents on motorways are rear end shunts, probably caused by people driving too close and not looking far enough ahead.

If you start banning people for this it would certainly cut congestion, whether or not the public transport system could cope is another matter.

If the speed limit is cut, they will drive closer and still not watch what they are doing, but the impact will be less hard. The cars will still be damaged and insurance claims will still need to be made. Obviously we could train drivers not to make the mistakes in the first place, by teaching them to watch what they are doing and not to drive to close. Perhaps we could invent a camera that senses when people arnt' watching what they are doing, then send them a fine in the the post 3 weeks after the event....

I have a machine at work that bares testament to my college not watching what he was doing, we were doing 2.1kph and he still managed to bend my elevator, so "high speed" was not really a factor.

Perhaps we could invent an in car device (lets call it something like RADAR) which detects the separation from the car in front and gently applies the brakes if it is too close for the speed.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I haven't, hence "etc." on the end. What I mean is instant-ban offences rather than totting up for little things. Having said that I would be surprised if many people had been banned repeatedly under the totting-up system; I would expect multi-banners to be the real 'rogue drivers'.