Driving standards

[johnofwessex]

3 hours ago, Grovenor said:

It is mentioned, says he told the police he was chasing someone who he thought was involved in a collision!

 

Not his business to chase them................

[petethemole]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Driving at that speed along a street like that really is about as reckless as firing a gun at random.

You wouldn't do much damage, there's not a lot left after all the bombs....

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Grovenor said:

It is mentioned, says he told the police he was chasing someone who he thought was involved in a collision!

I suspect police didn't find anything of the first driver!

[boxbrownie]

17 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Apart from the ban he will also have to retake his driving test plus extras. Thats if he can get insurance, the insurance companies are not happy at forking out one third of a million.

He may well be self insured, a lot of....er shall we say VERY wealthy people do.

 

Or just through a company insurance.

Edited January 1, 2021 by boxbrownie

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Not his business to chase them................

Just a weak excuse, not a mitigation......no doubt the police (hopefully) told him he shouldn’t have attempted to chase them when attending the aftermath.

[peanuts]

Dipping her headlights 

 

 

[boxbrownie]

7 hours ago, peanuts said:

Dipping her headlights 

 

 

Very lucky lady......

[big jim]

On 31/12/2020 at 14:25, johnofwessex said:

I fail to understand in cases like these why offenders are not given the same treatment as knife or firearm offender given the threat they oppose to others - that includes the methods used to stop them if needed

we had a situation 11 years back where a driver put my 9 month pregnant wife in hospital (the baby didn’t move for hours after the collision), it was one of those insurance scam crashes, the driver got found guilty of dangerous driving and the judge told him when sentencing that if he merely put him in prison for 6 months he would be out in a couple and doing the same again so he opted to make his life as difficult as possible by giving him a 6 month suspended sentence, huge fine, 3 year driving ban, extended test, 150 hours community service and a rehabilitation course 

 

as for the baby, he’s now 11! 

[johnofwessex]

4 hours ago, big jim said:

we had a situation 11 years back where a driver put my 9 month pregnant wife in hospital (the baby didn’t move for hours after the collision), it was one of those insurance scam crashes, the driver got found guilty of dangerous driving and the judge told him when sentencing that if he merely put him in prison for 6 months he would be out in a couple and doing the same again so he opted to make his life as difficult as possible by giving him a 6 month suspended sentence, huge fine, 3 year driving ban, extended test, 150 hours community service and a rehabilitation course 

 

as for the baby, he’s now 11! 

 

Firstly I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your wife.

 

Given that it was clearly intentional, it seems to me that a lifetime driving ban and lifetime of supervision - in addition to anything else should be an option open to the courts

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Firstly I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your wife.

 

Given that it was clearly intentional, it seems to me that a lifetime driving ban and lifetime of supervision - in addition to anything else should be an option open to the courts

How effective is a 'lifetime' ban. What stops them driving without a licence?

[johnofwessex]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

How effective is a 'lifetime' ban. What stops them driving without a licence?

 

Good point.

 

IMHO a Driving Ban should be the equivalent of an injunction with power of arrest so if yo are caught driving when banned its off to the cells & wait for a judge to become available to deal with you.

 

Good Job for The Police on a Friday afternoon ideally before a Bank Holiday 

[PhilJ W]

I do recall where someone had a life ban due to several drink driving offences ignored the ban and carried on driving. The inevitable happened and in the crash one of his passengers died. He then tried to claim that the dead passenger was the driver but the police were able to prove that he was the culprit. IIRC he got 15 years inside.

[Reorte]

On the way back from work today, car in a sideroad on the left - waiting, not running straight out, indicating to go right, finally pulls out right in front of me. Swerved to avoid him, thank god nothing close by coming the other way, he still kept moving after I had started turning, luckily nothing more happened. Sometimes I suppose peoples' brains just turn off; it's not as if the visibility is bad where it happened, and my headlights were definitely working.

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Reorte

[Enterprisingwestern]

9 hours ago, Reorte said:

On the way back from work today, car in a sideroad on the left - waiting, not running straight out, indicating to go right, finally pulls out right in front of me. Swerved to avoid him, thank god nothing close by coming the other way, he still kept moving after I had started turning, luckily nothing more happened. Sometimes I suppose peoples' brains just turn off; it's not as if the visibility is bad where it happened, and my headlights were definitely working.

 

 

Trousers and seat need a good clean and disinfect?!!

 

Mike.

[mezzoman253]

First time I used one of these I though this is an accident waiting to happen.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160075/Lorry-driver-tells-inquest-avoided-killing-two-hard-shoulder.html

 

Rob

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Trousers and seat need a good clean and disinfect?!!

Not far off.

[JDW]

1 hour ago, mezzoman253 said:

First time I used one of these I though this is an accident waiting to happen.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160075/Lorry-driver-tells-inquest-avoided-killing-two-hard-shoulder.html

 

Rob

 

Yeah I don't understand how we've gotten that so wrong - compare to somewhere like Germany, where similar things have been going on for much longer. I don't have statistics to compare but I'd suggest that their way of doing it - which is to keep the hard shoulder and make it available for use when traffic is busy and it is clear - is much safer, as the default setting is still that its a hard shoulder unless indicated otherwise (by overhead/roadside signs). Compare that to Britain where the default position is its a running lane, relying on people to see signs saying it isn't to make it safe. I simply don't understand how or why anyone could conclude that is safer/better. 

[caradoc]

In September I drove the M6 and through Staffordshire there were miles of roadworks preparing for Smart Mway 'upgrade'; One thing that surprised me was how few, and therefore how far apart, the refuges will be; A vehicle in trouble would have to be very lucky to reach one before conking out in an open lane. The German system does sound far more sensible. 

 

[boxbrownie]

43 minutes ago, caradoc said:

In September I drove the M6 and through Staffordshire there were miles of roadworks preparing for Smart Mway 'upgrade'; One thing that surprised me was how few, and therefore how far apart, the refuges will be; A vehicle in trouble would have to be very lucky to reach one before conking out in an open lane. The German system does sound far more sensible. 

 

Just been mentioned on the news that when the system was first announced the trial motorway section had refuges every 400 metres......now the system is up and running more commonly the distance is 2500 metres, something which was mentioned and criticised by the coroner in the recent inquest.

[PhilJ W]

But putting them 2500 metres apart instead of 400 metres saves money.

[raymw]

somewhere, there should be a statement stating what the distance currently should be. If it says that it should be 400 metres, then whoever has accepted anything else, is at fault. If it says a greater distance, then there should be something that gives that variation.  Most likely, If someone was to chase the money, then it'll most likely open a large can of corrupted worms. But, nobody cares, who ought to care and could do something about it, because most likely they are riding the same gravy train.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

But putting them 2500 metres apart instead of 400 metres saves money.

 

More like moves it from the road building budget to the emergency services budget.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, raymw said:

somewhere, there should be a statement stating what the distance currently should be. If it says that it should be 400 metres, then whoever has accepted anything else, is at fault. If it says a greater distance, then there should be something that gives that variation.  Most likely, If someone was to chase the money, then it'll most likely open a large can of corrupted worms. But, nobody cares, who ought to care and could do something about it, because most likely they are riding the same gravy train.

It was only mentioned that 400 metres was used in the first introduction of the trial motorway section, when the system was fully introduced it increased to 2500 metres obviously implying the trial distances was to show that Smart Motorways could operate safely but of course that was increased and safety was “thrown out the window” during the ensuing time.

[298]

6 hours ago, JDW said:

 

Yeah I don't understand how we've gotten that so wrong - compare to somewhere like Germany, where similar things have been going on for much longer. I don't have statistics to compare but I'd suggest that their way of doing it - which is to keep the hard shoulder and make it available for use when traffic is busy and it is clear - is much safer, as the default setting is still that its a hard shoulder unless indicated otherwise (by overhead/roadside signs). Compare that to Britain where the default position is its a running lane, relying on people to see signs saying it isn't to make it safe. I simply don't understand how or why anyone could conclude that is safer/better. 

 

British drivers were deemed to be too thick to understand when the system was in operation, ie when it was a live lane and when it was hard shoulder. I can fully believe that.

 

I'd accept the argument that removing the hard shoulder makes it less safe because the perception of having it as a safety net has gone (and barrelling along parts of the M1 southbound on Northamptonshire on a 60yr old alignment with a steep embankment immediately to your left is unnerving), but there are plenty of single and dual carriageways that have nowhere to stop either and stopping on those stretches is as dangerous as the smart motorways case in the media, if anything and with the accompanying footage of near misses shows a complacency to driving on a motorway.

 

One solution to avoid accidents with stationary vehicles is to not have them stop in the first place, driving standards and attitudes are a broad brush but there's also the issue of a lack of maintenance awareness so when that funny noise that a driver has ignored around town for the previous month suddenly lets go at 70 mph then that is something that could have been prevented.

[johnofwessex]

Its a pity that road modifications are not treated like railways where the modifications have to be signed off as safe by a competent person