Driving standards

[57xx]

So a portable Give Way to Buses sign. Does it make any difference to most drivers - of course not! Never heard of anyone getting booked for it.

 

We have a similar thing over here, added into the Highway Code just over ten years ago IIRC and London Buses then had a similar sign added to the back of them. Many drivers took this as carte blanche to pull out on people using the "manoeuvre, signal, what mirror?" technique. It clearly states, to give priority "when safe to do so", where-as the bus drivers just barge out, nearly had the side of my car caved in several times as they decide to pull out whilst I'm halfway past them (having started the pass before they are are indicating). If I am behind one that starts to indicate, I'll always let them out but I'm not a mind reader.

[Hujie]

Please let buses pull out and help reduce the population of minibuses!!!!!  

[Reorte]

Stupid low limits must be challenged.

Won't happen in today's environment (or at least very rarely) since it's rather hard to make a safety case for it. If going slower means fewer accidents then going slower will stay. People getting frustrated by going slower and doing something stupid isn't the fault of the speed limit but of the driver, so doesn't count against it (on that part I mostly agree though, since people should be held responsible for their own actions).

[stewartingram]

Technology is just about there to (centrally)monitor every car's speed, though implimenting it isn't. If when that happens is when speed limits will be enforced properly.

 

Stewart

[Reorte]

Technology is just about there to (centrally)monitor every car's speed, though implimenting it isn't. If when that happens is when speed limits will be enforced properly.

 

I'd rather have bad drivers around and the consequences of that than that sort of monitoring.

[Guest]

I'd rather have bad drivers around and the consequences of that than that sort of monitoring.

Given the bunch of fatal accidents recently reported locally round our way that statement makes me quite grumpy.

If you are doing something where doing it badly can kill people I'd like someone to know that you are doing it badly.

[Penlan]

Technology is just about there to (centrally) monitor every car's speed, though implimenting it isn't.

What, even my pair of (legal) road going 1934 Austin  7's. 

 

And to pre-empt the inevitable.. They have a voluntary, but proper, MoT Test every year now.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Penlan

[Titan]

What, even my pair of (legal) road going 1934 Austin  7's. 

 

And to pre-empt the inevitable.. They have a voluntary, but proper, MoT Test every year now.

 

I am quite sure it would be possible to add a GPS receiver that could transmit position and speed in real time, even to a 1934 Austin 7.

[Guest]

What, even my pair of (legal) road going 1934 Austin  7's. 

Yeah. Gaffa tape a smart phone to it.

Seriously. Commodity hardware able to log & transmit speed, position & g-force.

[Reorte]

Given the bunch of fatal accidents recently reported locally round our way that statement makes me quite grumpy.

If you are doing something where doing it badly can kill people I'd like someone to know that you are doing it badly.

Unfortunately you have to draw the line somewhere and the idea of monitoring what everyone gets up to as they go about their own business because a small number of idiots shouldn't be on the road in the first place makes me very grumpy (and that's before you get into the issue of quite how well correlated things like breaking speed limits is with being dangerous). Please stop treating everyone like potential criminals or children just because a few are. It's really making the world an unpleasant place to live in.

 

If I am doing something badly then it should be known. If I'm not then it's not anyone else's business what I'm doing. Your life shouldn't be a matter of record in every single detail; I find the way it's going rather poisonous.

 

I'd support such an idea for so many years after passing the test, or after a certain (fairly low) number of points have been racked up, or perhaps below a certain age, but not as a compulsory across-the-board thing.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Reorte

[Guest]

Unfortunately you have to draw the line somewhere and the idea of monitoring what everyone gets up to as they go about their own business

You can go about your own business just fine. But driving isn't your own business. It's everyone's business. I wholeheartedly believe you should have no expectation of privacy in the way you drive. This isn't the same as everyone knowing where you are going, but like a pilot you should be prepared to justify your actions logged in the black box.

 

On the technology side I see there's a recent case where a hit and run driver was caught after her own car called the emergency services on impact and she was unable to give the operator a good reason why she was now driving away from the scene.

[Reorte]

Driving is your own business, sorry about that. The idea of being constantly monitored whilst you do it, without any reason to believe that you're a bad driver, is so disturbing that I find it gobsmacking that anyone could defend it. The idea world in which such things are routine and accepted is truly frightening - and you could use exactly the same arguments you're using to justify almost anything. I find it far more worrying than all the big-name threats and issues the news is always going on about.

 

No, I shouldn't have to be prepared to justify and log anything whatsoever unless there's a damned good reason for it, and that a small percentage of drivers shouldn't be on the road is most certainly not a damned good reason. Can't trust anyone, must watch everyone, everyone must be treated like an irresponsible fool - why on earth do you want to live in such a world?

 

People have been hurt and killed by others being careless on a bike. Or even on foot.

 

edit to add: I'm all for coming down like a ton of bricks on genuinely dangerous drivers; if I see them often enough the police must see them even more often, so it's worrying that they're still out there. And I've got a clean licence (in case there's any suspicion that I might have a personal axe to grind).

Edited December 16, 2015 by Reorte

[stewartingram]

I always think about driving, and safety, like this:

 

A butcher uses a knife within his trade - I don't think you can get a much simpler example than this. He learns how to use it properly, if he doesn't, he loses fingers! So an unskilled worker in a butcher's shop, working at the same pace as the proper butcher, is very much in danger isn't he?

 

Now a car (or other vehicle) is a tool, to use it you have to learn skills. A skilled person (ie properly taught, and learnt through experience, just like the butcher) driving that car, uses that tool properly. An unskilled person, driving the same vehicle has not yet been properly trained, nor has the experience behind him, to use that tool properly - but with an added "bonus"......The butcher is a lone worker (as far as wielding that knife is concerned). Any mistake only causes him self harm.

The person in the vehicle has the potential likelihood of harming others.

 

Hence those unskilled people should NOT be in charge of that tool unless properly trained, and monitored in some way. This could be retests, or technology "snooping".

 

Stewart

[Reorte]

Hence those unskilled people should NOT be in charge of that tool unless properly trained, and monitored in some way. This could be retests, or technology "snooping".

There is most definitely a place for such technology, it's the idea of blanket application that really bothers me. So for recently passed drivers for example, or ones who have already demonstrated that their driving is at least questionable, I have no problems at all with the idea. But "no-one can ever be trusted not to be watched all the time"? No thanks at all. I find it rather dehumanising. The idea that people should have to thoroughly demonstrate that they're capable of being left to their own devices in something like a car before they are though, common sense.

 

Or did I miss the point and you think even if properly trained they should still be monitored? Retests sounds like a good idea though, it doesn't really make much sense that you can pass a test once and then never be checked again, and I've heard enough from people who have been sent on those speed awareness courses to suggest that there's a really scary lack of knowledge about the road and driving.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Reorte

[SwissRailPassion]

I went to the Wakefield exhibition where driving standards were good throughout. Trains now creep into termini but years ago I remember them coming in at a lick on some occasions. By and large most layouts had scale speeds. Widnes even had trains standing at reds on the mainline as befits the modern network.

It's annoying when there is a layout lovingly crafted in detail where trains run at a scale 90 or stop suddenly giving rise to scale whiplash.

I saw a 2mm prize winner at Hull where the scenery was breathtaking - but so were the speeds.

Edited December 16, 2015 by SwissRailPassion

[PhilJ W]

All this talk of monitoring is futile considering the numbers of CCTV cameras in use in this country. Many of those cameras watch our driving. I have no problem with that as I am a law abiding citizen, the only ones who should be worried are those who regularily flout the law. I have driven at high speeds on public roads (legally) and although I consider myself a reasonably good driver I am aware of my shortcomings as a driver and I do make mistakes. I do drive within my limits as a driver and the limits of the vehicle I'm driving. I like most of us here see examples of bad driving almost every day so its because of them that monitoring is needed. I can see the day coming when insurance companies will insist on constant monitoring of all drivers so its a matter of if you want to be monitored by the public authorities or a private company.

[Titan]

 the only ones who should be worried are those who regularily flout the law. 

 

Try telling that to someone who has had their number plate cloned. At the very best that is still a lot of extra hassle to worry about.

[PhilJ W]

Try telling that to someone who has had their number plate cloned. At the very best that is still a lot of extra hassle to worry about.

On board monitoring would reduce the amount of hassle in that case. A member of my model railway club is a long distance lorry driver and his vehicle has such monitoring systems as do most other commercials. He regards it as an asset rather than a 'spy in the cab' as in the case of an accident or other incident it can prove useful.

[Guest]

I've heard enough from people who have been sent on those speed awareness courses to suggest that there's a really scary lack of knowledge about the road and driving.

I'll agree with you there. Listened to someone excitedly telling about how they learned putting a frozen chicken on the rear parcel shelf was a bad idea.

 

[PatB]

But what will be monitored? The impression I get is that speed will be the numero uno target for any remote vehicle monitoring. Stay within the speed limit and you can happily indulge in any amount of otherwise lethal behaviour, fail to maintain situational awareness, tailgate, fail to give way appropriately and generally do whatever the hell you like. I fact, all the things that a live police patrol can pick up and nick you for but which is near impossible, or at least impractical, to monitor remotely. But there won't be so many police patrols, will there, because we're all being so efficiently monitored. A pretty dubious result for road safety.

 

Time to buy some ancient and rorty hotrod, whose vibration, unsuppressed magneto ignition and fine mist of Castrol R will render any transponder inoperative within minutes .

[Reorte]

I'll agree with you there. Listened to someone excitedly telling about how they learned putting a frozen chicken on the rear parcel shelf was a bad idea.

Erk.

 

I'm definitely thinking more and more often that regular re-tests (perhaps every 10 years, more recently when newly passed?) would be a very good idea indeed, and that they need to demonstrate actual thought about driving rather than rote learning (quite how that could be achieved though I don't know). Not that some rote learning isn't needed either, one story I heard suggested that rather a large number of people present didn't even know what the national speed limit was on an ordinary two-lane road.

 

I'm confident that we'll agree that it's best if these people's knowledge and skills were improved so that they don't get into trouble in the first place. I'd rather share roads with people not going around corners on the wrong side of the road with two wheels in the air because they know it's stupid, rather than simply because they'll get in trouble if they do.

[stewartingram]

There is most definitely a place for such technology, it's the idea of blanket application that really bothers me. So for recently passed drivers for example, or ones who have already demonstrated that their driving is at least questionable, I have no problems at all with the idea. But "no-one can ever be trusted not to be watched all the time"? No thanks at all. I find it rather dehumanising. The idea that people should have to thoroughly demonstrate that they're capable of being left to their own devices in something like a car before they are though, common sense.

 

Or did I miss the point and you think even if properly trained they should still be monitored? Retests sounds like a good idea though, it doesn't really make much sense that you can pass a test once and then never be checked again, and I've heard enough from people who have been sent on those speed awareness courses to suggest that there's a really scary lack of knowledge about the road and driving.

I work in the railway industry where safety is paramount. NOBODY passes a test for life. You are continually monitored/retested, as well as training refreshes. I have no qualms about that. Driving, as I stated earlier, has repercussions for others when things go wrong. Monitoring is necessary, no-one should be above that.

 

Stewart

 

Edit to add:

 

My works vehicle is contiually tracked via GPS. (Disregarding the legality of them doing it, and taking action from it), my management has the capability to track my movement, including speed, whether I brake sharply, or turn abruptly. I have no problems with this. We get emails sent to us on a sfety basis if we exceed these parameters. They are recorded the same way as a "near miss" in statistical terms within the company.

Edited December 16, 2015 by stewartingram

[Guest]

But what will be monitored? The impression I get is that speed will be the numero uno target for any remote vehicle monitoring. Stay within the speed limit and you can happily indulge in any amount of otherwise lethal behaviour, fail to maintain situational awareness, tailgate, fail to give way appropriately and generally do whatever the hell you like..

 

AFAIK the current devices used as insurance black boxes log speed, position & g-forces (along with the time for curfews).

You can infer quite a bit from that. If you screech to a halt at junctions, wander over the road, go past no entry signs etc you're probably not doing that well.

 

Some insurance companies have a smart phone app that does the same kinds of things. You can try it out to see if they like your driving. Maybe you should give it a go with a fake name or something

[Reorte]

I work in the railway industry where safety is paramount. NOBODY passes a test for life. You are continually monitored/retested, as well as training refreshes. I have no qualms about that. Driving, as I stated earlier, has repercussions for others when things go wrong. Monitoring is necessary, no-one should be above that.

I'm not talking about the railway industry, since I've no involvement in that. I'm talking about driving on public roads. Monitoring is not necessary there (for everyone, might be for some people) and the idea of blanket monitoring is thoroughly abhorrent. I really, really do not want to live in such an intrusive world with such a lack of respect for the people in it.

 

When it comes to company vehicles on roads that's also a different situation (if nothing else it's useful for a business to know where its assets are).

[runs as required]

... the idea of blanket monitoring is thoroughly abhorrent. I really, really do not want to live in such an intrusive world with such a lack of respect for the people in it...

On the other hand (as a Mondeo driver!!) I've always been convinced that the only way you should be charged for motoring is similar to the way you are charged for energy use - so you get metered and charged monthly for what you've used.

Before the Blaydon bridge was opened, we at Newcastle University had nearly 3 years of using Newcastle Western bypass for experimenting with various methods of monitoring driving/speeds/roads use - and a simple way of charging for road use emerged.

It was apparently because of fear of the Mondeo drivers' lobby (and the Daily Mail) that the Government rejected any attempt at such a rational policy and stayed with the crude Council Tax type of taxation for road usage.

 

dh

 

Ed: bad typing

Edited December 16, 2015 by runs as required