Driving standards

[Horsetan]

Just get a Chinese one. They can do 60.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/29/elderly-chinese-jumping-red-lights-and-driving-wrong-way-down-ro/

 

Growing old disgracefully.

[njee20]

My turn to have a bit of a whinge about Driving Standards.....

 

On Saturday I got called out to a job in the centre of Cardiff, now as most of you know it was hoofing it down in the South West for most of the day, so why 'o' why didn't most people have their flaming lights on!!!!

 

I lost count of the number of dark coloured cars that were hurtling along the outside lane of the M4 without any lights on, and not all of them were BMW's or Audi's either. I drive a Vauxhall Insignia that has daytime running lights and headlights that come on via a light sensor, but even I knew that I needed to actually turn my headlights on because it was raining. Oh and by the way, if your daytime running lights are on, it doesn't necessarily also mean your rear lights are on as well. My previous car was a VW Golf which had Daytime Running Lights which also included the rear lights, but the Vauxhall doesn't, so please people CHECK TO SEE WHAT LIGHTS COME ON WITH YOUR DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS.

It is definitely a problem, and one I think is absolutely exacerbated by modern cars. There's virtually no way of telling when the headlights are on on my Golf, so it's very easy at times of low light to forget. On my old one the dashboard was only illuminated with the headlights, so you were acutely aware when you couldn't read your instruments any more! The current one is illuminated all the time though, so if you drive into bad weather it's easy to simply overlook it, and because the lights are automatic and you never have to think about it we get lazy!

 

That said... my headlights are more sensitive than I'd like for low light, but terrible in fog, they just don't come on, obviously something to do with the sensor. Seems a common problem with VW/Audi cars given the number driving around without their lights on in fog. Clearly Vauxhall's lights are less sensitive to low light too. I'd still prefer that to people who drive around with their fog lights on all the time though. Special place in hell for them.

[jonny777]

Whilst cyclists don't?

I'm not trying to be facetious, the trouble is that if you legalise/encourage riding on pavements it just gives the knuckle-dragging anti-bike motoring contingent more ammunition to suggest cyclists have no place on the roads. By suggesting that cyclists can ride on the pavements as long as they give way to pedestrians or be found legally culpable in the event of a collision it's hardly doing anything to refute that. We're already seeing on this thread people saying "cyclists who don't use cycle paths deserve to die", and this is ostensibly a thread complain about driving standards; you'd assume it was self-selecting in weeding out those with the lack of mental capacity to understand the highway code.

 

There should be a focus on sharing and potentially improving existing infrastructure - people on bikes (commuters at least) are generally reducing congestion, so it's an odd psychology that a certain subset of motorists complain about them so much. Do they think they'd be held up less if everyone drove cars instead?

 

 

I take your point about my idea being hi-jacked by the anti-cyclist brigade. I had not thought of the darker side of driving attitudes towards being forced to slow down and respect all road users, when all certain drivers seem to want to do is show off their latest status symbol with high speed acceleration/overtaking demonstrations which leave two-wheeled users in the hedge.

 

However, that is not to say all cyclists are perfect when it comes to obeying road markings, signs and the highway code either.

[njee20]

Of course they aren't, totally agree.

 

Some people are , whether they're on a bike, in a car, on foot or in a spaceship! Sadly one of those groups is more prone to being 'tarred with the same brush'.

 

Bloody astronauts.

[Baby Deltic]

 Can people do 30 mph on the pavement?

 

No. Grass verges only!

[kevinlms]

It is definitely a problem, and one I think is absolutely exacerbated by modern cars. There's virtually no way of telling when the headlights are on on my Golf, so it's very easy at times of low light to forget. On my old one the dashboard was only illuminated with the headlights, so you were acutely aware when you couldn't read your instruments any more! The current one is illuminated all the time though, so if you drive into bad weather it's easy to simply overlook it, and because the lights are automatic and you never have to think about it we get lazy!

 

That said... my headlights are more sensitive than I'd like for low light, but terrible in fog, they just don't come on, obviously something to do with the sensor. Seems a common problem with VW/Audi cars given the number driving around without their lights on in fog. Clearly Vauxhall's lights are less sensitive to low light too. I'd still prefer that to people who drive around with their fog lights on all the time though. Special place in hell for them.

People driving around with little or no lights on are absolute fools. Don't just rely on auto sensors to turn them on or off. It really isn't that hard to turn the switch manually - it was standard for well over 100 years!

 

Doesn't say much for driverless vehicles, if the electronics can't even turn lights on properly!

[Baby Deltic]

Seems reasonable! I'm pretty certain plenty of people never actually passed a driving test, so not sure it'll help.

 

As an aside... Even if you do mandate cycle paths you're still not safe: clicky.

 

That was absolutely reckless driving. The car driving on the pavement could have easily hit a pedestrian. If he wanted to safely overtake those cyclists he should have used the grass verge which is clearly available looking at the footage.

[Calnefoxile]

 

Doesn't say much for driverless vehicles, if the electronics can't even turn lights on properly!

 

Ahh but by the time Driverless cars become mainstream, I think all lights will be on permanently.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

[Baby Deltic]

Ahh but by the time Driverless cars become mainstream, I think all lights will be on permanently.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

 

And the roads probably a lot safer too.

[Reorte]

People driving around with little or no lights on are absolute fools. Don't just rely on auto sensors to turn them on or off. It really isn't that hard to turn the switch manually - it was standard for well over 100 years!

 

Doesn't say much for driverless vehicles, if the electronics can't even turn lights on properly!

Better to not have the sensors, it makes you complacent about turning the lights on and off if they work most of the time, and reaching for a switch is hardly a difficult task that ever needed automating.

[kevinlms]

Ahh but by the time Driverless cars become mainstream, I think all lights will be on permanently.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

Will they? There is always the problem with battery capacity. Having lights on at all times when the vehicle is active (which includes stuck in traffic - don't tell me that congestion is suddenly going to stop with driverless cars), is going to lessen the range. I'm fully aware that LED lights are much less power hungary, but why waste it putting lights on when no need.

[newbryford]

Ahh but by the time Driverless cars become mainstream, I think all lights will be on permanently.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

 

But surely if everyone has a driverless car then we won't need lights as the car will know where everything is...........

 

  :no:  

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited September 5, 2016 by newbryford

[njee20]

Better to not have the sensors, it makes you complacent about turning the lights on and off if they work most of the time, and reaching for a switch is hardly a difficult task that ever needed automating.

That was my point - because they nearly always work perfectly you don't think about it any more. Last time I took my car in for a service and they switched off the headlights I was driving at dusk and actually thought 'hmm it's got a bit dark, why aren't my lights on!?' obviously they'd turned them off. I felt like a bit of a prat. Were they manual I would of course have just switched them on at some point I deemed appropriate.

 

It's not good, but it's like anything automatic, you rely on it working automatically, otherwise it's pointless! See also auto-handbrakes, gear boxes, windscreen wipers, central locking etc etc. Not necessarily an excuse, but it's hardly surprising behaviour, I've barely had to touch my headlight switch in years!

[roundhouse]

But surely if everyone has a driverless car then we won't need lights as the car will know where everything is...........

 

  :no:  

 

Cheers,

Mick

Nor driving instructors!

[Baby Deltic]

Nor driving instructors!

But who will teach the driverless cars to drive in the first place?

[coachmann]

But who will teach the driverless cars to drive in the first place?

Dunno, but we could soon end up with padestrianless pavements...

[PhilJ W]

Scroll back to the post I was quoting which implied hitting a bicycle was fine because it was a pedestrian crossing.

 

In any case when driving up to a crossing you should be eyeballing what's waiting to cross so you shouldn't be taken by surprise.

If its a pedestrian crossing I look out for pedestrians, a cyclist can be travelling at five times the speed or more of a pedestrian and could be out of sight of a driver until its too late. This is exactly what happened in this case, the cyclist shot out of a pedestrian only path between two buildings across the footpath onto the crossing.

[royaloak]

Scroll back to the post I was quoting which implied hitting a bicycle was fine because it was a pedestrian crossing.

 

In any case when driving up to a crossing you should be eyeballing what's waiting to cross so you shouldn't be taken by surprise.

The cyclist was still in the wrong!

[Guest]

If its a pedestrian crossing I look out for pedestrians, a cyclist can be travelling at five times the speed or more of a pedestrian and could be out of sight of a driver until its too late. This is exactly what happened in this case, the cyclist shot out of a pedestrian only path between two buildings across the footpath onto the crossing.

But what you wrote was this:

 

When it came up in court the defence only had to point out that it was a pedestrian crossing to get the claim thrown out.

[PhilJ W]

But what you wrote was this:

 

Yes, the cyclist tried to make a claim against the motorist but it was proved that the cyclist was culpable.

[njee20]

Post can be read two ways "it was a pedestrian (who was using the) crossing", or as is the case "it was a pedestrian crossing" (as opposed to a cycle path, thus the cyclist was correctly deemed at fault.

[ParkeNd]

As a car driver who rides bikes for fitness, I wish :-

 

1. Other cyclists wouldn't make me embarrassed about the breed by riding through traffic lights when red.

 

2. Cyclists with Go-Pro cameras on their helmets wouldn't ride straight at cars about to turn right out of side streets.

 

 

As a cyclist I wish :-

 

1. Car drivers wouldn't overtake me from behind without pulling out a few feet.

 

2. Car drivers would just drive without balancing iPads on the steering wheel.

[Guest]

Here's a fun one:

 

Look at this ped-cyclo-zebra crossing thing.

 

Some of it is a zebra crossing so cars should give way to pedestrians.

The cycle bit looks like it's part of the crossing except that it has give way markings so the crossing has no purpose unless motorists stop out of sheer confusion.

 

[njee20]

Technically a car could stop on the zebra crossing to give way to a cyclist, or stop in the cycle lane to give way to a pedestrian. Unnecessarily cluttered though.

[Coryton]

remember mentioning anything about removing the cyclists' freedom to ride on side roads. This is not about curtailing cycle freedom, but merely adding pseudo cycle paths across the country at little or no extra cost as an alternative.

 

 

I think the point was not that cyclists wouldn't be able to use side roads but that a cyclist on a road has priority over traffic turning into and out of side roads.

 

But as soon as you put the cyclist on the pavement (either on a cycle path or because you've made it legal for cyclists to be on pavements) they have to give way at every single side road, watching out for traffic coming from at least three directions at once (leaving the side road, and entering from the main road in both directions). This slows things down and possibly actually makes it more dangerous.

 

As an aside, my experience on shared footpaths and cycle paths in the UK - even ones with huge signs telling cyclists to ring their bells and give pedestrians priority - is that too many cyclists interpret this as having the right to ride up behind walkers at great speed without any warning and overtake with barely any clearance, presumably expecting them to do the pedestrian equivalent of mirror-signal-manoeuvre before making any sideways movement that would put them under the bike's wheels. Even if the said pedestrian is a three year old child. Doesn't make for a very relaxing walk.

 

So I'm not convinced that the UK is ready for indiscriminate pavement-cycling just yet.