Driving standards

[peanuts]

this just beggars belief why only 26 weeks ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39552612

[PhilJ W]

this just beggars belief why only 26 weeks ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39552612

Probably because of consideration for her child, far more than she showed. What surprised me was only a three year ban, a life ban would be more suitable IMHO.

[chris p bacon]

That would have been at least 20 years ago, given after that would require direct access to ride a full power bike, or 2 years riding a bike of under 25kW before being able to ride an unrestricted bike.

 

The rules now are really hideous to get an unrestricted licence.

 

All the best

 

Katy

You are quite possibly correct as it is 37 years since my test, but the 2 individuals mentioned don't worry about things such as insurance or doing things correctly. Their attitude is "I have a license, I can ride anything".

 

I would point out that they are not friends but people I have come into contact with through work.

[Kickstart]

You are quite possibly correct as it is 37 years since my test, but the 2 individuals mentioned don't worry about things such as insurance or doing things correctly. Their attitude is "I have a license, I can ride anything".

If they are not worried about insurance then they probably wouldn't care about licenses. A changed test is hardly going to stop them getting a Hayabusa.

 

The tests seem to have hammered the 17 year old (pretty much zero point in anyone 17 doing a motorcycle test), while doing nothing about 40 year olds who can just wobble around for a week on a large bike doing some training and a test.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Baby Deltic]

Probably because of consideration for her child, far more than she showed. What surprised me was only a three year ban, a life ban would be more suitable IMHO.

She doesn't deserve to keep custody of the child in my opinion if she behaves like that.

[Enterprisingwestern]

With regard to automatic fuctions on vehicles, personally, I think the manufacturers must take some of the blame for the lowering of driving standards generally, they are removing the need to think whilst driving, and, with the human being is basically a lazy animal, it will take the simplest course of action to complete a task. Removing the need for thought envelopes all functions of a driver and they will "switch off" brain functions as they think the task is being done for them and occupy the spare spaces with other thoughts, often to the detriment of driving quality and awareness.

Also, making cars more crashworthy encourages a more reckless degree of driving, as invincibility comes into the equation.

I still maintain the safest car is one with no windscreen or side doors and a 12 inch dagger sticking out of the steering wheel, that would make drivers circumspect.

 

Mike.

[TheQ]

She doesn't deserve to keep custody of the child in my opinion if she behaves like that.

"Almost five hours later in hospital, a blood sample was taken which showed 156 milligrams of alcohol in Chikwature’s blood – the legal limit is 80."

 

She must have been darn near paraletic at the time, not fit to be in charge of a child at any time let alone in a car...

 

Link to local papers pictures and report.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/shocking-dashcam-footage-sees-drink-driving-mum-launch-car-into-the-air-trapping-herself-and-19-month-old-son-inside-after-speeding-over-roundabout-1-4970560

Edited April 11, 2017 by TheQ

[Gwiwer]

With regard to automatic fuctions on vehicles,......

Mike.

 

 

I whole-heartedly agree with this.  If we create an environment in which the driver becomes merely the steering-and-braking person (and even those functions are being technologically removed or reduced) then we invite the use of other things.  Such as, but not limited to, mobile phones and other communication devices.  We also drive (pun intended) a culture of complacency because "The car does that itself".  

 

We have yet to arrive at definitive case law in most places with respect to who is liable in he event of an incident caused by or directly attributed to an automated function.  If the driver is not paying sufficient attention to their task then they should remain wholly liable for their actions or lack thereof.  There should not be a "Blame the car" culture neither is the manufacturer actually liable if your lights are not on when they need to be, you fail to avoid something behind when reversing or you cause an accident for any other reason.

[Jol Wilkinson]

With regard to automatic fuctions on vehicles, personally, I think the manufacturers must take some of the blame for the lowering of driving standards generally, they are removing the need to think whilst driving, and, with the human being is basically a lazy animal, it will take the simplest course of action to complete a task. Removing the need for thought envelopes all functions of a driver and they will "switch off" brain functions as they think the task is being done for them and occupy the spare spaces with other thoughts, often to the detriment of driving quality and awareness.

Also, making cars more crashworthy encourages a more reckless degree of driving, as invincibility comes into the equation.

I still maintain the safest car is one with no windscreen or side doors and a 12 inch dagger sticking out of the steering wheel, that would make drivers circumspect.

 

Mike.

 

Mike,

 

I spent all my career (bar three years running a model shop) working for three motor manufacturers involved in the dealer and customer facing areas. I can assure you that a significant proportion of motorists have never understood how their car functions, how to get best out of it, how to drive it safely, etc.

 

I see this as a chicken and egg situation or a patient and doctor relationship. The motor manufacturers are reacting to society's demands for ever more complicated products that are simple to use. But unlike mobile phones, central heating controllers, washing machines, etc. cars and motor bikes are products that can kill or maim if not used properly.

 

Are the motor manufacturers wrong to to produce products that a easier/safer for the majority of unskilled motorists to use to use? Or should they produce cars like they did in the 60's and 70's with no ABS, etc. and rely on the drivers common sense to use it safely. The answer is "of course not". When you see how stupidly people behave anyway (the topic of this thread) even with all these safety (ABS, traction control, etc.) and convenience features (heated screens, easily adjustable steering wheels, seats and mirrors,  etc.) then you should look at the user as being responsible for how they drive.

 

The one thing that should perhaps be legislated for is the power of engines. Who needs a car capable of  0- 60 in 6 seconds and 160 mph in our motoring environment. Perhaps only those for who think a lot of horse power is an indication of their social status, sexual prowess, annual bonus, etc.

 

Jol

Edited April 11, 2017 by Jol Wilkinson

[PaulCheffus]

I whole-heartedly agree with this.  If we create an environment in which the driver becomes merely the steering-and-braking person (and even those functions are being technologically removed or reduced) then we invite the use of other things.  Such as, but not limited to, mobile phones and other communication devices.  We also drive (pun intended) a culture of complacency because "The car does that itself".  

 

We have yet to arrive at definitive case law in most places with respect to who is liable in he event of an incident caused by or directly attributed to an automated function.  If the driver is not paying sufficient attention to their task then they should remain wholly liable for their actions or lack thereof.  There should not be a "Blame the car" culture neither is the manufacturer actually liable if your lights are not on when they need to be, you fail to avoid something behind when reversing or you cause an accident for any other reason.

Hi

 

The manual in my car states the following after every driver assistance function

 

"Driver assistance systems are developed to support the driver and not to replace the driver's attention. The driver accepts full responsibility when driving the vehicle. When using driver assistance systems, always take care regarding the current traffic situation."

 

Even then I expect someone would claim it was the cars fault.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[cheesysmith]

Talking of bits added to cars to take away people's ability to actually drive. My pet hate is ABS brakes. These remove the need for cacadance braking, but can in certain situations cause there own problems. Like if the road has a covering of loose stuff or slushy snow. In these situation locking up the front wheels can actually clear the surface enough to allow the rears to grip enough to slow/stop the vehicle. ABS will just kick in, and the result would be zero loss of speed and result in you twatting the car in front, ask me how I know this?

 

All modern cars have to have ABS fitted by law, and it has to be working or a MOT fail at test time. I still prefere my 1995 Nissan skyline GTS-T. It is basically a powerful rear wheel drive car, and the. Ly assistance the car does is the power steering. Everything else is upto you.

[PhilJ W]

this just beggars belief why only 26 weeks ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39552612

A similar incident happened right outside my front door several years ago. Similar in that the drunk driver had her young child in the car with her. Fortunately the speed was a lot lower as she collided with a house rather than a roundabout. My house is on the corner of a T junction, facing the end gable of the house on the other corner. The driver came up my turning (the upright of the T) and then tried to take the junction at too high a speed and lost control. She done a full 180 degree turn and slammed into the front of the house opposite mine.

[Gwiwer]

 

 

When you see how stupidly people behave anyway (the topic of this thread) even with all these safety (ABS, traction control, etc.) and convenience features

Even with (my bold for emphasis), or because of?

 

Make it easier for the driver and you make it easier for them to become distracted.  I respect experience and knowledge of the industry.  I also firmly believe that all learners should start on a manual in order to understand vehicle control and the concept of actually driving.  When they gain a full licence, or if we reach a time when there are no more manual-shift cars, then they can progress to automatics and perhaps - hopefully- be semi-skilled responsible drivers who understand the consequences of failing to obey a simple set of rules and who can manage most situations they are likely to face in the driving seat.

 

Learn on an automatic and all you learn is basic vehicle control, not "driving", in many cases.  You learn to rely on and trust the car to behave is it is programmed to to.  That isn't the most appropriate response in every situation.  It's nice to have power steering but that doesn't mean we could or should take corners faster.  It's good to have ABS but we still benefit from learning how a skid feels and how to safely control and get out of one.  And so on.

 

I am all for progress.  But also subscribe to the school of "Just because we can doesn't always make it right".  Progress must be tempered and defined by demonstrated need as much as by the development of technology.

[PhilJ W]

Talking of bits added to cars to take away people's ability to actually drive. My pet hate is ABS brakes. These remove the need for cacadance braking, but can in certain situations cause there own problems. Like if the road has a covering of loose stuff or slushy snow. In these situation locking up the front wheels can actually clear the surface enough to allow the rears to grip enough to slow/stop the vehicle. ABS will just kick in, and the result would be zero loss of speed and result in you twatting the car in front, ask me how I know this?

 

All modern cars have to have ABS fitted by law, and it has to be working or a MOT fail at test time. I still prefere my 1995 Nissan skyline GTS-T. It is basically a powerful rear wheel drive car, and the. Ly assistance the car does is the power steering. Everything else is upto you.

I think that ABS brakes do encourage bad driving by encouraging drivers to use their brakes excessively, this can be seen by the number of times you see brake lights coming on when braking should not be neccessary. Using the brakes to often does nothing for the fuel consumption either.

[peanuts]

I whole-heartedly agree with this.  If we create an environment in which the driver becomes merely the steering-and-braking person (and even those functions are being technologically removed or reduced) then we invite the use of other things.  Such as, but not limited to, mobile phones and other communication devices.  We also drive (pun intended) a culture of complacency because "The car does that itself".  

 

We have yet to arrive at definitive case law in most places with respect to who is liable in he event of an incident caused by or directly attributed to an automated function.  If the driver is not paying sufficient attention to their task then they should remain wholly liable for their actions or lack thereof.  There should not be a "Blame the car" culture neither is the manufacturer actually liable if your lights are not on when they need to be, you fail to avoid something behind when reversing or you cause an accident for any other reason.

with the plethora of automatic trucks  (manual gearboxes now being a cost option ) most new hgv drivers are known sneeringly  as "steering wheel attendants " and some of them drive that way 

[Horsetan]

...automatic fuctions ...

I've never heard them called that before.

[Baby Deltic]

I've never heard them called that before.

It's when you fart and lose the gamble........

[Gwiwer]

I've never heard them called that before.

 

You haven't had one go wrong on you, have you?

[Baby Deltic]

You haven't had one go wrong on you, have you?

Very uncomfortable and messy experience, I'm sure.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Baby Deltic

[Guest]

I think that ABS brakes do encourage bad driving by encouraging drivers to use their brakes excessively, this can be seen by the number of times you see brake lights coming on when braking should not be neccessary. Using the brakes to often does nothing for the fuel consumption either.

 

Now I have regen braking I only use the friction brakes for the actual stopping bit

[Baby Deltic]

Some manufacturers are now fitting a retractable blade across the front of the car and grass sensors so if you decide to use the grass verge, it automatically deploys and cuts the grass in front of you. Apparently it's better for fuel consumption especially when overtaking.

[Guest]

with the plethora of automatic trucks  (manual gearboxes now being a cost option ) most new hgv drivers are known sneeringly  as "steering wheel attendants " and some of them drive that way 

 

Uber for trucks!

 

It's going to happen....

[Baby Deltic]

Now I have regen braking I only use the friction brakes for the actual stopping bit

You need a pantograph kit on the roof to push the regen power back into the overhead lines though.

[Reorte]

You need a pantograph kit on the roof to push the regen power back into the overhead lines though.

Sounds like dodgems, and there are enough people driving like they're driving dodgems!

[Guest]

You need a pantograph kit on the roof to push the regen power back into the overhead lines though.

 

Bloody communist!

It's my electricity and I'm keeping it!