Driving standards

[Enterprisingwestern]

Surely the Mclaren driver has a flunky in a Prius to do this.

 

No, he sends his flunky in the Aventador to do it.

 

Mike.

[MJI]

I didn't have that much faith in British justice before.

 

None at all this afternoon after the announcement of the second verdict at Reading in the motorway accident trial.

 

First lorry, with drunk Polish driver, stops his lorry on Lane 1. Following minibus, stops behind him. No collision, no fatalities. That driver is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

 

Second lorry, with driver using handheld mobile phone, hits the back of minibus, crushes it against first lorry. 8  dead. Not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. (Convicted of lesser offence of causing death by careless driving).

 

What does that message does that send to all those numpties - especially commercial drivers - who continue to use their mobile phones?

 

 

First driver, drunk with no licence, DELIBERATELY drove on motorway while drunk.

Second driver, lack of concentration, probably on mental auto pilot.

 

I am also assuming that careless is correct for him as it was lack of care not deliberate.

[newbryford]

First driver, drunk with no licence, DELIBERATELY drove on motorway while drunk.

Second driver, lack of concentration, probably on mental auto pilot.

 

I am also assuming that careless is correct for him as it was lack of care not deliberate.

 

He wasn't on auto pilot - he was on the phone.

Using a phone whilst driving is beyond lack of care.

[DCB]

First driver, drunk with no licence, DELIBERATELY drove on motorway while drunk.

Second driver, lack of concentration, probably on mental auto pilot.

 

I am also assuming that careless is correct for him as it was lack of care not deliberate.

Main thing is the lawyers made a good few quid out of it.

Be fair, the guy had mitigating circumstances relating to drunk driving in that he was drunk at the time and not fully in control of his actions.  A sober person driving while drunk would be a far more serious offence.  

The Minibus driver's actions don't sound right,  Do we know he hadn't run into the first lorry?  I wouldn't have stopped behind a single broken down vehicle on a carriageway of a quiet motorway, not with a hard shoulder to go down.  As it was the Minibus driver probably saved the following drivers life by a split second error of judgement for which he paid the ultimate price. 

I just think the wrong lesson is being learned.here. To be safe at night avoid the inside lane, leave it to HGVs. I know plod disagree but at the end of the day a conviction or two for driving without due consideration is a lot less onerous than winding up dead.

[Sheffield]

This case illustrates the problem in such cases. While many of us may think the second driver was guilty of dangerous driing, in that he was in control of a large vehicle, but not giving the job his proper attention. However a clever lawyer could well have made a case, as some have here, that he was only guilty of careless, but not dangerous driving. If he had been took to court for dangerous driving he could have been found not guilty and got off altogether. That wouild have been wrong. By going for careless driving they were much more certain of getting a conviction. W can only hope the judge puts him in prison for a long time, but I doubt if he will. But still it has ruined his life and driving career.

Since the second driver was at work, why can they not also get a convictiot under health and safety? He was guilty of not taking proper precautions to ensure the safety of those effected by his actions at work. if, for example, he had been in a factory working a large press, and some one had got killed because he was on the phone he would have been in serious trouble.

Poeple have asked why the bus driver stopped behind the lorry. I suspect he thought it was a traffic queue. He perhaps could not see around the large lorry. We don't normally expect a drunk Polish man to stop in the carriageway, although I do think we need to be more careful of lorry drivers than we are..

Edited March 8, 2018 by Sheffield

[New Haven Neil]

The second driver was using a hands free phone - so nothing illegal in that.  He wasn't paying due care and attention to his driving - therefore the correct offence has been prosecuted. 

 

The first driver was drunk (twice over the limit), did not have a driving licence (It had been rescinded) and stopped on a motorway, which is a no stopping zone.  The correct offence has again been prosecuted.

 

So.....what's incorrect here?  Nothing IMHO.

[TheQ]

and the video shows the mini bus driver stopping behind the Artic as he had no gap in the traffic,  to go into the middle lane.

Edited March 8, 2018 by TheQ

[Coryton]

Since the second driver was at work, why can they not also get a convictiot under health and safety? He was guilty of not taking proper precautions to ensure the safety of those effected by his actions at work. if, for example, he had been in a factory working a large press, and some one had got killed because he was on the phone he would have been in serious trouble.

 

We apply very different health and safety principles in transport compared to other areas of life.

 

If roads had to work to the same safety principles as factories the country would come to a stop.

 

Cars waiting at pedestrian crossings would have to be locked and tagged before the green man came on.

 

We wouldn't contemplate taking a group of 5 years olds along a narrow walkway in a factory with no barrier between them and dangerous machinery - but on school trips it's fine to take them along a pavement next to traffic travelling at 40 mph or more.

 

It's not just roads of course - I can't imagine that any factory could get away with the electrocution risk inherent in the third rail system in the UK, even if it had been built in an age where safety standards were different.

[PhilJ W]

and the video shows the mini bus driver stopping behind the Artic as he had no gap in the traffic,  to go into the middle lane.

And it is obvious in the video that the traffic is travelling far to close together. This is why I often use the outer lanes as it simply is not safe to move overtake me.back into the inside lanes as there just isn't the space. And if I am travelling at the posted speed limit there would be no need for anyone to a

[Nick C]

Approaching a roundabout last night - three lanes, each clearly marked - left only, left or straight, right or straight. Big queue in lanes two and three, because the traffic light phasing is terrible. I'm in lane two, behind a white van, we're both going straight on. 

 

Lorry pulls up next to the van in lane 1. As the lights change and we enter the roundabout, lorry sticks his right indicator on and forces his way into lane two to go straight on, causing the van to swerve and both myself and the car in lane three to have to slow to avoid him (albeit gently as I was half expecting the lorry to do something stupid and so had hung back a bit, and by his road position I suspect the car in lane 3 did too). Had the van been turning left I dread to think what might have happened...

[Sheffield]

Some time ago we were show on television film of driverless lorries following one another with some 10 feet between each one, the whole convoy under the guidance of a driver in the leading lorry.. We were told that this development would soon be found on our motorways and other roads.

What if the driver in the leading vehicle stops doing what he is there to do, as did the second driver in the case being discussed, and instead directs his attention to his phone or something else. Given the gap between each vehicle in the demonstration if the first stops suddenly the rest can not avoid hitting the one in front. A fully loaded lorry can not stop in 10 feet.

I for one do not find the idea pleasent.

[TheQ]

The lorry's are wirelessly linked, you hit the brakes on the first one, the brakes on all of them go on.

On top of that, it's now possible for in lorry / car radar to detect the moment the vehicle in front touches the brakes and therefore the following vehicle brakes much quicker than a human can do. This is already fitted to some vehicles.

 

The bigger problem is, if it's a long convoy and you are overtaking when you discover you need the slip road.

[peanuts]

The lorry's are wirelessly linked, you hit the brakes on the first one, the brakes on all of them go on.

On top of that, it's now possible for in lorry / car radar to detect the moment the vehicle in front touches the brakes and therefore the following vehicle brakes much quicker than a human can do. This is already fitted to some vehicles.

 

The bigger problem is, if it's a long convoy and you are overtaking when you discover you need the slip road.

one would expect thats if its is a long convoy as you state above that all the vehicles in the convoy will be suitably marked up to reflect this and inform any other drivers .it is then upto you the other road user to read this information take heed and plan any over taking or passing maneuver before starting it so you shouldn't "discover " you need a slip road except in an emergency . getting into that scenario would be down to your own poor ability to read the road and plan accordingly   but seeing as the vast majority of motor way tend to drive fixated on the tail lights of the vehicle infront i do expect it to happen  

[Coryton]

The lorry's are wirelessly linked, you hit the brakes on the first one, the brakes on all of them go on.

On top of that, it's now possible for in lorry / car radar to detect the moment the vehicle in front touches the brakes and therefore the following vehicle brakes much quicker than a human can do. This is already fitted to some vehicles.

 

So not entirely unlike the reason that coaches in a train don't bump into each other when the driver puts the brakes on.

[duncan]

one would expect thats if its is a long convoy as you state above that all the vehicles in the convoy will be suitably marked up to reflect this and inform any other drivers .it is then upto you the other road user to read this information take heed and plan any over taking or passing maneuver before starting it so you shouldn't "discover " you need a slip road except in an emergency . getting into that scenario would be down to your own poor ability to read the road and plan accordingly   but seeing as the vast majority of motor way tend to drive fixated on the tail lights of the vehicle infront i do expect it to happen  

 

While I agree with most of what you say Peanuts, but if the only warning of the junction is a 1 mile, then 1/3 mile signs on the near side of the road, it would be very easy to miss them, particularly if you are unfamiliar with the road. 

 

If I am out in the old car, I don't have satnav, am looking up at the tops of lorry tyres & have (shall we say) more on my mind than when passing large vehicles than remembering distances between junctions, as I am probably not visible in their mirrors even with all lights on and am constantly watching other traffic for them pulling out & my escape routes.  With the the roof down, the car is under 4 ft high.  Travel on a busy motorway is no fun.  Big 4 x4s, SUVs & vans are in many ways more of a problem being high enough to hide signs, as them are travelling faster, cut about lanes more frequently and seem to have bigger blind spots in their mirrors. 

 

I write down directions on a board, but have to either memorise them or read them; then memorise the odometer reading figure to the next junction or write it down.  I am not complaining as it is my choice to drive the old car.  Putting some of the drivers of the above vehicles in my car would probably give them a very unpleasant experience of how they (often unwittingly) treat others.  Horns are no use, as too many modern vehicles are so well sound proofed that the occupants can't hear them.  A "proper" train horn which would enter their switched off minds would give them such a scare it would be dangerous.  

 

 

Ed   -  easier to put the edit here than another post - Mad (below) I was meaning I can't be sure they can see me in their mirrors when overtaking; certainly not in the nearside, as I have had to brake sharply to avoid them cutting my bonnet off when they pull back in, makes me wonder if they can see me in the off side either if I am overtaking them

Edited March 11, 2018 by duncan

[Mad McCann]

Duncan, I hope I’m reading your description of events correctly here, but if a driver of a large vehicle can’t see you then you are clearly too close to them.

You’d be surprised I expect by the limited vision a bus driver has.

Please, always work on the principle that if you can’t see the mirrors of the large vehicle ahead of you there isn’t a snowballs chance he can see you. Even with you all lit up like a Christmas tree.

I don’t want to scrape you off the back of my bus mate, so please drop back enough to see our mirrors.

Every one of us will be a lot happier for that.

[royaloak]

What about traffic trying to join the motorway when they are met by a string of lorries 10ft apart in lane 1, how are they supposed to join the motorway?

Edited March 11, 2018 by royaloak

[kevinlms]

Some time ago we were show on television film of driverless lorries following one another with some 10 feet between each one, the whole convoy under the guidance of a driver in the leading lorry.. We were told that this development would soon be found on our motorways and other roads.

What if the driver in the leading vehicle stops doing what he is there to do, as did the second driver in the case being discussed, and instead directs his attention to his phone or something else. Given the gap between each vehicle in the demonstration if the first stops suddenly the rest can not avoid hitting the one in front. A fully loaded lorry can not stop in 10 feet.

I for one do not find the idea pleasent.

I don't get it, how is a driver who comes up behind such a train, expected to know how many vehicles it contains?

 

Why does a minimum distance not apply between vehicles, this is called tailgating? 

 

If there are say 4 vehicles, surely its going to make it difficult to pass, if you know up ahead there is an exit, you need. Its a form of road hogging.

 

Sounds like the whole idea is on saving labour costs for the operator and too bad for other road users.

[peanuts]

I don't get it, how is a driver who comes up behind such a train, expected to know how many vehicles it contains?

 

Why does a minimum distance not apply between vehicles, this is called tailgating?

 

If there are say 4 vehicles, surely its going to make it difficult to pass, if you know up ahead there is an exit, you need. Its a form of road hogging.

 

Sounds like the whole idea is on saving labour costs for the operator and too bad for other road users.

one suspects that bye the time road trains are in use much of the driving experiance will have been taken away from the user by automation and it will just be a case of programme in your destination and the vehicle will do the rest route spacing junctions etc .had an interesting chat on another forum where the other person envisaged little or no car ownership as in the current model but more of a hire per mile scenario you want a vehicle to get you and six others from A to B thats what is sent from a central hub to your puck up point pay your fee and off you go

[kevinlms]

one suspects that bye the time road trains are in use much of the driving experiance will have been taken away from the user by automation and it will just be a case of programme in your destination and the vehicle will do the rest route spacing junctions etc .had an interesting chat on another forum where the other person envisaged little or no car ownership as in the current model but more of a hire per mile scenario you want a vehicle to get you and six others from A to B thats what is sent from a central hub to your puck up point pay your fee and off you go

Maybe the self driving vehicles, but I can't see the 'taxi' approach becoming the norm. People want cars that are customised, both with the level of comfort and what they want/need to carry around. Typically trades people or families, who wants to transfer all their gear, each time they go out and come home again?

Might work for people that just need a laptop/smart phone to do their job or just a physical presence, but realistically what percentage of the population is that?

 

We already have vehicles, where a group of people going to the same location can utilise. They're called buses and trains.

[Kris]

What about traffic trying to join the motorway when they are met by a string of lorries 10ft apart in lane 1, how are they supposed to join the motorway?

 

The traffic joining will need slow down / stop as appropriate, after all the traffic already on the motorway has priority and traffic joining should give way.  http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/joining-the-motorway.html

[Norm81]

The traffic joining will need slow down / stop as appropriate, after all the traffic already on the motorway has priority and traffic joining should give way.  http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/joining-the-motorway.html

That's going to cause chaos at the end of slip roads, as most human drivers would move over if possible or adjust their speed to ease the joining of traffic. When faced with a ~150ft "wall" across the end of the slip road you could end up trying to merge with traffic behind the convoy going significantly faster than you now are.

 

It's much better when everyone merges in together at matching speeds. The length of the convoy and lack of individual control over it's vehicles makes that much more difficult.

 

The only suitable place for three lorries to be following each other is on rails.

[Coryton]

Why does a minimum distance not apply between vehicles, this is called tailgating? 

 

The reason for a sensible distance between vehicles (which most people ignore) is for braking purposes, which isn't relevant if the convoy is arranged so that all the brakes come on at once.

 

That's not to say that such 'road trains' wouldn't bring their own problems.

 

one suspects that bye the time road trains are in use much of the driving experiance will have been taken away from the user by automation and it will just be a case of programme in your destination and the vehicle will do the rest route spacing junctions etc .had an interesting chat on another forum where the other person envisaged little or no car ownership as in the current model but more of a hire per mile scenario you want a vehicle to get you and six others from A to B thats what is sent from a central hub to your puck up point pay your fee and off you go

 

This is what Isaac Asimov 'predicted' (as in put in a story) many decades ago - self driving cars were introduced and became mandatory but were so much more expensive that only the very rich could afford their own - everyone else hired them as required.

 

If that's the way things went I expect people would cope.

 

 

Maybe the self driving vehicles, but I can't see the 'taxi' approach becoming the norm. People want cars that are customised, both with the level of comfort and what they want/need to carry around. Typically trades people or families, who wants to transfer all their gear, each time they go out and come home again?

 

Might work for people that just need a laptop/smart phone to do their job or just a physical presence, but realistically what percentage of the population is that?

 

We already have vehicles, where a group of people going to the same location can utilise. They're called buses and trains.

 

 

There is a huge difference between a bus/train and a car which picks you up from where you are and takes you where you want to go. A much bigger one than the difference between a car that lives on your drive and is full of your clutter and one which you have to load with your stuff each time you use it.

 

As for "just need a laptop/smart phone to do their job or just a physical presence",   plenty of people fly for both work and leisure and manage to transfer all the things they need with them into luggage which they have to carry with them - far more hassle than just sticking everything into the boot of the self-driving car that has come and parked itself in your drive.

 

I'm not saying that this is the way things will go, but some of the objections don't seem that valid to me.

[DaveF]

There is a huge difference between a bus/train and a car which picks you up from where you are and takes you where you want to go. A much bigger one than the difference between a car that lives on your drive and is full of your clutter and one which you have to load with your stuff each time you use it.

 

As for "just need a laptop/smart phone to do their job or just a physical presence",   plenty of people fly for both work and leisure and manage to transfer all the things they need with them into luggage which they have to carry with them - far more hassle than just sticking everything into the boot of the self-driving car that has come and parked itself in your drive.

 

I'm not saying that this is the way things will go, but some of the objections don't seem that valid to me.

 

Some thoughts on this.

I've just had a look at what is in my car:

 

Several identification guides for plants and animals - I'm a biologist so often want to look things up when I see them.

Maps - where I live some roads Sat Navs suggest are not actually real roads.  The council have had to put quite a lot of signs telling people not to follow Sat Navs.

Compressor and some tools - in my area lots of places have no mobile phone coverage so I need to get myself out of trouble.

Old waterproof coat, hat, gloves and in winter a shovel.

First aid kit and some extra bits.

Reflective jacket and other safety gear.

Shopping bags.

Large sheet of material to protect boot when I carry plants, compost etc.

Bag to put muddy boots in.

Parking disc, disabled permit for when I have Mum in the car.

Stuck on the windscreen another parking permit.

walking stick

umbrella

tripod

etc.....

 

I really would not have to put some or all of those in the car every time I go out - and then take them all out when I get home again.

 

Also living in a county which is the least densly populated in England where would the cars be kept and how long in advance would I have to book them?  I also wonder about the extra fuel (even electricity which has to generated somehow) if cars have to come to the house from another location every time I go anywhere - and where I live public transport does not go anywhere near most places I visit.

 

It could work well for people who live in cities and can often use public transport.

 

Balanced against all that though - it might be nice to still be able to get out and about when I am no longer able to drive - if I live that long.

 

David

[Coryton]

Some thoughts on this.

I've just had a look at what is in my car:

 

Several identification guides for plants and animals - I'm a biologist so often want to look things up when I see them.

Maps - where I live some roads Sat Navs suggest are not actually real roads.  The council have had to put quite a lot of signs telling people not to follow Sat Navs.

Compressor and some tools - in my area lots of places have no mobile phone coverage so I need to get myself out of trouble.

Old waterproof coat, hat, gloves and in winter a shovel.

First aid kit and some extra bits.

Reflective jacket and other safety gear.

Shopping bags.

Large sheet of material to protect boot when I carry plants, compost etc.

Bag to put muddy boots in.

Parking disc, disabled permit for when I have Mum in the car.

Stuck on the windscreen another parking permit.

walking stick

umbrella

tripod

etc.....

 

I really would not have to put some or all of those in the car every time I go out - and then take them all out when I get home again.

 

Also living in a county which is the least densly populated in England where would the cars be kept and how long in advance would I have to book them?  I also wonder about the extra fuel (even electricity which has to generated somehow) if cars have to come to the house from another location every time I go anywhere - and where I live public transport does not go anywhere near most places I visit.

 

It could work well for people who live in cities and can often use public transport.

 

Balanced against all that though - it might be nice to still be able to get out and about when I am no longer able to drive - if I live that long.

 

David

 

You can balance the extra fuel against the environmental cost of building a car which spends most of its time sitting around waiting to be used.

 

I expect if self-driving car hire became the norm we'd move away from parking discs on windscreens.

 

Emergency equipment - some of that would presumably go with the vehicle.

 

I'm not disputing that many people have got used to be able to keep lots of stuff in a car and would be reluctant to change.

 

However, I know quite a few people (living in a city, of course) who realised that they were barely using their car and got rid of it. 

 

Somehow those who (by choice or otherwise) rely on public transport do seem to cope somehow with just bringing what they need when they go out of the house.

 

It can be instructive for things like this to think how people would react if it were the other way around. What objections might people have if they were forced to move from hiring a car as they needed it to having to buy one?

 

Let's see:

- Stuck with one size of car - can't hire a nippy two seater when they want it or a 7 seater when they have extra people/luggage to carry.

- Up front cost/committing to car loan

- Unknown maintenance/repair costs

- Responsible for keeping it in good condition, taking it to the car wash...

- Scraping the ice off the windscreen in the morning because you don't have a garage

- Fighting over on-street parking

- Coping without your car when it goes in for a service

- Having to have two cars even though most of the time one is enough

- Having to get a car for children as they get older or ferry them round everywhere