Driving standards

[ejstubbs]

I must have missed the item on the news today about the mysterious automotive electrical virus that has disabled the indicators on every small passenger vehicle.  Either that or everyone I encountered at junctions and roundabouts this morning was a lazy, inconsiderate *rse.

 

(I can't remember whether I've done this rant before on here but what the hell: one of the few things that is requested of people in return for being allowed to move about relatively quickly, in comfort and with minimal personal effort is to flick a small lever within a finger's length of their steering wheel every so often.  If they really can't be bothered to do that then maybe they should be required to try walking instead, and see how they like that.)

Edited April 8, 2019 by ejstubbs

[alastairq]

Indication should be given, {a} correctly, {b} in good time, & {c} when necessary.   [These are driving test criteria for indications]

 

It seems obvious that many folk don't deem it necessary for anyone to know what they intend doing. {IE, it is none of their business?}

 

Of  those that do indicate, too many do so as a 'token gesture'.....ie, 2 or 3 flashes of the indicator........as if everyone is avidly watching for whereabouts the little flashing lights appear? [Which reminds me...why do manufactures go to such lengths to make their indicators...especially front ones, so darned difficult to identify? Especially in bright sunlight?]

 Token gesture indication can be seen all to often on motorways, with drivers [especially lorries] seem to think it OK [''I've indicated, mate!'']...to indicate, and pull out to overtake, at one & the same time!

When really..having decided an intention to overtake, the indicator should be applied to allow following traffic good time to respond...before , having again checked the mirrors, pulling out to the overtaking lane......cancelling that signal as soon as ensconced in that lane.

In reality, so many drivers merely 're-act', rather than 'anticipating'...which doesn't fill me, personally, with confidence regarding the other driver's capabilities.

It all seems as if the skill of driving is far too hard/ inconvenient a pastime to indulge in.....?

Edited April 8, 2019 by alastairq

[Sidecar Racer]

I posted this in another area a while ago , but it's worth repeating here .

[Nick C]

I was taught "Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre". The typical driver round here seems to go in more for either "Manoeuvre" or "Manoeuvre, Signal" - with the signal applied as they turn the wheel (presumably so they can do the whole thing one-handed to avoid having to put their phone down)

[ejstubbs]

 

57 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I was taught "Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre".

 

IIRC* the full police roadcraft version has seven steps, and includes three observation steps: one before you start, one half way through to check whether your preparation for the manoeuvre (adjusting speed, selecting the right gear etc) has brought any new actors/hazards in to play, and the final "life saver" (which in the motorcycle version at least involves actually looking back over your shoulder).

 

No doubt an IAM member will pop up shortly to tell me that I'm wrong, but I'm not keen on the principle a friend of mine was taught: that if nobody is around to benefit from a signal, then it should not be given.  I am prepared to allow that omitting a signal if it's clearly and irrefutably unnecessary is OK, but that decision would actually be very, very low in my priority list of things to think about when preparing to carry out a manoeuvre.  There can be situations when you have to think carefully about how and/or when to indicate - e.g when wishing to turn in to the second of two closely-spaced side roads - but actively seeking to identify situations where I can avoid doing something that takes so little time and effort does not strike me as a particularly useful way to apportion one's limited mental resources.  Basically, it seems more like a party trick than an actual safety measure.  It seems to rely on you never making a mistake, which is an unsafe approach IMO: the standard procedure should err towards "failing safe".

 

* I'm ashamed to say it's a long time since I picked up the book for a quick refresher.

[MarkC]

I thought it was "Can My Safety Be Given Away?" . Which, of course, refers to Course (what's my intended manoeuvre), Mirror, Signal, Brake (as required), (select appropriate) Gear, Accelerate (away).

[Jub45565]

6 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

 but I'm not keen on the principle a friend of mine was taught: that if nobody is around to benefit from a signal, then it should not be given. 

 

Yeah I agree with you - in my mind that is stupid.  For a start, it helps if you have somehow missed something (we are human, and do make mistakes) if you indicate beforehand which warns the person you've missed that you might start veering into them - but also adds an extra pointless step in the process.  Ie look, think (do I need to indicate), yes/no, plus when someone appears half way around the roundabout you have to rethink and start doing.

 

Just do the indications at all times regardless, you don't get flustered if someone appears, etc..., it just becomes another subconscious part of driving leaving the conscious part of the brain to worry about/observe all the other people driving around trying to kill you...

[Nick C]

14 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

 

IIRC* the full police roadcraft version has seven steps, and includes three observation steps: one before you start, one half way through to check whether your preparation for the manoeuvre (adjusting speed, selecting the right gear etc) has brought any new actors/hazards in to play, and the final "life saver" (which in the motorcycle version at least involves actually looking back over your shoulder).

 

I am actually an IAM member, above I was referring to the original RTA driving lessons that everyone should have done.

 

The current IAM/roadcraft system is "IPSGA" - Information, Position, Speed, Gear, Acceleration - with Information (take, use and give) overlapping all of the others, which should happen sequentially.

[Baby Deltic]

2 hours ago, Sidecar Racer said:

I posted this in another area a while ago , but it's worth repeating here .

 

Yes, but there is a serious amount of intelligence and common sense required to become a pilot and remember all of those dials and buttons. A lot of car drivers nowadays employ neither common sense nor intellect to driving situations, maybe due to a lack of it in some cases.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Baby Deltic

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

I am actually an IAM member, above I was referring to the original RTA driving lessons that everyone should have done.

 

The current IAM/roadcraft system is "IPSGA" - Information, Position, Speed, Gear, Acceleration - with Information (take, use and give) overlapping all of the others, which should happen sequentially.

 

The problem is, that in the perfect world we don't live in, not everybody is an IAM member. I am not denigrating such membership, but I will guarantee without any knowledge whatsoever that you can't possibly drive a decent mileage over a period of, say a week, sticking 100% to IAM guidelines because the rest of the idiots on the road won't allow it.

 

Mike.

[ejstubbs]

4 hours ago, MarkC said:

I thought it was "Can My Safety Be Given Away?" . Which, of course, refers to Course (what's my intended manoeuvre), Mirror, Signal, Brake (as required), (select appropriate) Gear, Accelerate (away).

 

Just checked my copy of Motorcyle Roadcraft.  Blimey, it's 34 years old!  Gulp...

 

Anyway, in there it says:

 

1 - Course

2 - Rear observation, signals and speed

3 - Gear

4 - Rear observation and signals

5 - Horn

6 - Rear observation (lifesaver)

7 - Acceleration

 

I should probably get hold of the latest (2103) edition!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 hours ago, alastairq said:

Indication should be given, {a} correctly, {b} in good time, & {c} when necessary.   [These are driving test criteria for indications]...

I would rewrite that to: Indication should be given, {a} correctly, {b} in good time, & {c} without fail. (Always necessary, because you may not have seen someone for whom the indication may be vital.)

 

Even drivers who signal for other vehicles, neglect to do so for pedestrians waiting to cross roads. There's a location in my home town where this behaviour is plain, about 80% signal at a road junction where traffic merges, about 20% signal for two subsequent much used turnings following shortly after.

[96701]

6 hours ago, Jub45565 said:

 

Yeah I agree with you - in my mind that is stupid.  For a start, it helps if you have somehow missed something (we are human, and do make mistakes) if you indicate beforehand which warns the person you've missed that you might start veering into them - but also adds an extra pointless step in the process.  Ie look, think (do I need to indicate), yes/no, plus when someone appears half way around the roundabout you have to rethink and start doing.

 

Just do the indications at all times regardless, you don't get flustered if someone appears, etc..., it just becomes another subconscious part of driving leaving the conscious part of the brain to worry about/observe all the other people driving around trying to kill you...

Pedestrians appreciate knowing where road vehicles are going. I always signal even if there are no cars around. As a pedestrian myself (bearing in mind that a pedestrian is merely somebody who has found a parking space) it really narks me when I'm waiting to cross and the car I'm waiting for turns off before it gets to where I am standing.

[caradoc]

Even if a driver is caught using their phone at the wheel the penalty can be so pathetic as to be pointless; This lorry driver (ie a so-called professional) had been caught using his phone twice before yet 'had been allowed by magistrates to continue driving due to extreme hardship'. He then ended up killing an innocent motorist. I hope the magistrates involved are fully aware of the consequences of their lenience.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47857774

Edited April 9, 2019 by caradoc
So web address can be read !

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

yet 'had been allowed by magistrates to continue driving due to extreme hardship'

 

The hardship isn't his..it's that endured by those to whom he has responsibility. [Kids, significant-others, who are financially dependant on him.  ] The Magistrates are constrained by the rules everyone voted for [via their MPs]...I imagine, if he had received a ban, lost his job, had his home repoed ,or been evicted..then the 'strain' on the welfare state would have been significant, for his kids, etc.. [but not for him]...

We all would like folks like this hung, drawn & quartered, repeatedly.....but the Law does allow for  dependants to not be affected too much by the wrong-doings of one individual....

However, the financial penalty would have been significant for that individual.

I knew of a lady who got caught drink-driving.....pleaded the mitigation against the ban [single parent, had a disabled child to transport]....kept her licence, but paid a fine amounting to a small fortune. Not to mention her legal fees. Can't imagine her subsequent insurance was cheap either.

 

When I was working [a past life indeed]...I had dealings with a Cat C-driving student, who had some 30-odd points on his licence.....yet still retained his licence. His mitigation was that he had just joined the Army, so would need his licence, which was allowed....We queried this even with the Court concerned...but he could not afford to insure any sort of personal transport for some considerable time. He made a good driver, as it happened....obviously his past had begun to have a salutary effect on his approach to life?

 

Magistrates more often have less latitude when applying sentencing guidelines than it appear we on here would like. But then, equally, would we like Magistrates to be free to decide whatever took their fancy that particular day?  

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

Even if a driver is caught using their phone at the wheel the penalty can be so pathetic as to be pointless; This lorry driver (ie a so-called professional) had been caught using his phone twice before yet 'had been allowed by magistrates to continue driving due to extreme hardship'. He then ended up killing an innocent motorist. I hope the magistrates involved are fully aware of the consequences of their lenience.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47857774

The hardship argument winds me up - if being stopped driving is going to cause you extreme hardship then you've got even more incentive (yes, I know it shouldn't be needed) to not be a blithering idiot behind the wheel. Negligible expectation of responsibility towards others and none at all towards yourself seems to be how things work now.

 

Agree with others about indicating - indicate whenever you're turning. I suppose the argument about "if there's no-one around" comes from encouraging people to check more carefully before manoeuvring rather than just flicking the switch without paying attention but it still assumes that perfect situational awareness is possible, and anyone confident enough that that's always going to be the case is overconfident. I'd rather deal with people who might not be quite as on the ball but are aware of their shortcomings and allow for them. And it's not as if there's any downside to indicating when there's no-one to see it.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Reorte

[APOLLO]

Sat Nav ?

 

A few years ago I drove from Bangkok to Chiang Rai (far north) with just a fold out map of Thailand bought from WH Smith Wigan - only got lost once at a confusing unmarked junction - the sun was behind us so we knew we were going in the wrong direction & turned round  !!!!!

 

 

I've since bought a Thai road atlas - names on the map are in Thai, all road signs are in both Thai & English - adds to the fun !!

 

Paper maps for me every time.

 

Brit15

[TheQ]

Sahwahdeekhrap

( and thats about my limit..)

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

Even if a driver is caught using their phone at the wheel the penalty can be so pathetic as to be pointless; This lorry driver (ie a so-called professional) had been caught using his phone twice before yet 'had been allowed by magistrates to continue driving due to extreme hardship'. He then ended up killing an innocent motorist. I hope the magistrates involved are fully aware of the consequences of their lenience.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47857774

Should put http:// in front of it so it can be read. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47857774

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

 

The hardship isn't his..it's that endured by those to whom he has responsibility. [Kids, significant-others, who are financially dependant on him.  ] The Magistrates are constrained by the rules everyone voted for [via their MPs]...I imagine, if he had received a ban, lost his job, had his home repoed ,or been evicted..then the 'strain' on the welfare state would have been significant, for his kids, etc.. [but not for him]...

We all would like folks like this hung, drawn & quartered, repeatedly.....but the Law does allow for  dependants to not be affected too much by the wrong-doings of one individual....

However, the financial penalty would have been significant for that individual.

I knew of a lady who got caught drink-driving.....pleaded the mitigation against the ban [single parent, had a disabled child to transport]....kept her licence, but paid a fine amounting to a small fortune. Not to mention her legal fees. Can't imagine her subsequent insurance was cheap either.

 

When I was working [a past life indeed]...I had dealings with a Cat C-driving student, who had some 30-odd points on his licence.....yet still retained his licence. His mitigation was that he had just joined the Army, so would need his licence, which was allowed....We queried this even with the Court concerned...but he could not afford to insure any sort of personal transport for some considerable time. He made a good driver, as it happened....obviously his past had begun to have a salutary effect on his approach to life?

 

Magistrates more often have less latitude when applying sentencing guidelines than it appear we on here would like. But then, equally, would we like Magistrates to be free to decide whatever took their fancy that particular day?  

What about the hardship to the family of the young woman he killed?

[alastairq]

32 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

What about the hardship to the family of the young woman he killed?

 That, is another issue entirely.......and no doubt the subject of insurance claims against the driver.

 

The Magistrates don't have crystal balls.....plus, they are [rightly] compelled to consider dependants as 'innocent parties' when sentencing.....they should not be 'punished' for the same offence.

When the driver concerned appeared before the Courts on the mobile phone offences, no-one at all could say, he should be punished hard because he is going to kill someone in the future.

Hence, the later fatality is another issue entirely.

Hindsight  get's in the way of our thinking.

[caradoc]

11 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 That, is another issue entirely.......and no doubt the subject of insurance claims against the driver.

 

The Magistrates don't have crystal balls.....plus, they are [rightly] compelled to consider dependants as 'innocent parties' when sentencing.....they should not be 'punished' for the same offence.

When the driver concerned appeared before the Courts on the mobile phone offences, no-one at all could say, he should be punished hard because he is going to kill someone in the future.

Hence, the later fatality is another issue entirely.

Hindsight  get's in the way of our thinking.

 

The fact that this guy had already been caught using his phone while driving twice before (and as in the BBC report, had 12 points on his licence) was surely a clue to his driving competence and concern for other road users. As pointed out above, whatever hardship caused by him being banned from driving is nothing compared to that of his victim and her family. That this guy, with his record, was allowed to continue driving at all, let alone in charge of HGVs, is a disgrace; As also mentioned above, if losing your licence is going to be such a disaster for you and yours, consider that and ensure you obey the law.

 

[Titan]

So criminals just need to make sure they have plenty of kids as insurance against harsh sentences. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

27 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

The fact that this guy had already been caught using his phone while driving twice before (and as in the BBC report, had 12 points on his licence) was surely a clue to his driving competence and concern for other road users. As pointed out above, whatever hardship caused by him being banned from driving is nothing compared to that of his victim and her family. That this guy, with his record, was allowed to continue driving at all, let alone in charge of HGVs, is a disgrace; As also mentioned above, if losing your licence is going to be such a disaster for you and yours, consider that and ensure you obey the law.

It's a long established principle in our common law that penalties should not result in destitution; and that's a good principle for a whole heap of reasons.

 

But that is completely separate from the issue of a repeat offence by the same action. There we can be more sophisticated now: he needs the attention of a psychologist to determine just what he didn't understand the first time he was convicted. That approach might well determine that he is unfit to control any moving vehicle, and requires retraining to enable him to earn a living doing something else, with permanent supervision. We have the knowledge and the technologies to make such things possible. I badger my MP constantly on such matters, and the more of us bring such ideas forward the better the chances of 'something being done'.

 

I write the above with some feeling, last year three lifelong friends died when someone literally drove into them. The driver was identified with some difficulty, that he was identified as the person who destroyed the dashcam, contributing to his recent conviction. Sentencing to follow. What will that reveal? Someone who immediately gets purposefully busy destroying material evidence following a major collision is unusual to say the least...

[Reorte]

12 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It's a long established principle in our common law that penalties should not result in destitution; and that's a good principle for a whole heap of reasons.

 

But is the intention of that only to stop fines that would result in destitution?

 

IMO removing a licence isn't a penalty, it's purely about protecting others. The accompanying fine is the penalty.

 

I see a difference between removing a privilege and adding a burden.

 

Quote

But that is completely separate from the issue of a repeat offence by the same action. There we can be more sophisticated now: he needs the attention of a psychologist to determine just what he didn't understand the first time he was convicted. That approach might well determine that he is unfit to control any moving vehicle, and requires retraining to enable him to earn a living doing something else, with permanent supervision. We have the knowledge and the technologies to make such things possible. I badger my MP constantly on such matters, and the more of us bring such ideas forward the better the chances of 'something being done'.

That suggests that it should be the state's responsibility to retrain. I don't really see much difference between losing his job because he's been caught by the law or if his employers had found out first and sacked him for it (when hopefully no other haulage company would take him on after that either).

Edited April 9, 2019 by Reorte