Driving standards

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

What an idiot, took a wrong turning and decided to drive back to the roundabout the wrong way down a dual carriageway, until a truck driver stopped him.

https://www.facebook.com/ian.bailey.1253/videos/356607596124983

AKA, 'My mistake, is everyone else's problem'!

[johnofwessex]

One thing I dont understand is this, why is there not some sort of 'Fit and Proper' test attached to Driving Licences.

 

By definition, to pass your test you have to demonstrate competence to handle a vehicle, what drivers frequently do demonstrate is that they lack the necessary judgement to do so.

 

If you dont have the necessary judgement bye bye licence - until you can demonstrate that you have the level of judgement required, in this case it probably means a lifetime ban.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

One thing I dont understand is this, why is there not some sort of 'Fit and Proper' test attached to Driving Licences.

 

By definition, to pass your test you have to demonstrate competence to handle a vehicle, what drivers frequently do demonstrate is that they lack the necessary judgement to do so.

 

If you dont have the necessary judgement bye bye licence - until you can demonstrate that you have the level of judgement required, in this case it probably means a lifetime ban.

There is such a test. It is within the powers of the courts to order a miscreant to re-take a driving test.

[Dunsignalling]

24 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

There is such a test. It is within the powers of the courts to order a miscreant to re-take a driving test.

Though it seems to be sadly under-used.....

 

It should be automatic in every case of "totting up" bans IMHO.

 

John

Edited August 6, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Michael Hodgson]

If this was just some clip somebody put on facebook, chances are the old bill didn't know about and it won;t come to the attention of the courts.   

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

By definition, to pass your test you have to demonstrate competence to handle a vehicle, what drivers frequently do demonstrate is that they lack the necessary judgement to do so.

 

Judgement comes with experience...

 

... which should of course be acquired through lessons.

 

But there's also the assumption here that drivers exhibiting poor judgement have licences to be removed.

[laurenceb]

Yesterday morning while waiting for the bus, a transit type van came along with parcels piled up on the dashboard so high that the driver could only just see over the top! Was too surprised to take any details for future reference

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, laurenceb said:

Yesterday morning while waiting for the bus, a transit type van came along with parcels piled up on the dashboard so high that the driver could only just see over the top! Was too surprised to take any details for future reference

 

Strictly forbidden at DPD.

 

But drivers do it because it saves a lot of time and effort compared with getting items out from the back at each stop..

[laurenceb]

This was a white van man

[boxbrownie]

Hornby APT deliveries……

[johnofwessex]

6 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

There is such a test. It is within the powers of the courts to order a miscreant to re-take a driving test.

 

In Victoria, Australia you have to demonstrate that you no longer behave in the way that caused you to be banned before you can get your licence back, and if you were banned for drink driving its mandatory alcohol locks as well

[black and decker boy]

Highways England have announced plans to upgrade Dynamic Hard Shoulder motorways into full All Lane Running Smart Motorways. This should remove the confusion among drivers and bring consistency with the expanding length of ALR 
 

 

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/all-lane-running-upgrade/

[PhilJ W]

22 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Highways England have announced plans to upgrade Dynamic Hard Shoulder motorways into full All Lane Running Smart Motorways. This should remove the confusion among drivers and bring consistency with the expanding length of ALR 
 

 

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/all-lane-running-upgrade/

So they are going to ignore all the evidence on just how unsafe such motorways are?

[F-UnitMad]

28 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

This should remove the confusion among drivers

The only 'confusion' is for drivers who are either too pig-ignorant to bother, or too thick to read the signs. Both are an increasing hazard on the roads these days.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

So they are going to ignore all the evidence on just how unsafe such motorways are?

 

This wasn't smart a motorway, but no hard shoulder so much the same.

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2021/08/stoned-lorry-driver-crushed-police-car-and-seriously-injured-officers-in-a1-crash/

[black and decker boy]

28 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

So they are going to ignore all the evidence on just how unsafe such motorways are?

The statistics presented to the various HMG committees show that ALR motorways have less fatalities than any other type.

 

HMG have imposed extra requirements such as more emergency refuge areas and stopped vehicle radar which is now being rolled out.

 

Neither HMG nor HE are proposing to stop the roll out of ALR motorways. To roll back All Lane Running would generally mean a 25% reduction in capacity as no government will propose widening to add a new lane (the costs would also be vastly unaffordable) 

Edited August 14, 2021 by black and decker boy
Typo

[black and decker boy]

23 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

The only 'confusion' is for drivers who are either too pig-ignorant to bother, or too thick to read the signs. Both are an increasing hazard on the roads these days.

Red X enforcement on Smart Motorways is now happening so will hopefully reduce that behaviour 

[black and decker boy]

7 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

This wasn't smart a motorway, but no hard shoulder so much the same.

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2021/08/stoned-lorry-driver-crushed-police-car-and-seriously-injured-officers-in-a1-crash/

Hardly the fault of the road when a HGV driver high on drugs causes a crash.

 

I’ve witnessed many accidents where HGVs have wiped out vehicles sat on a hard shoulder or just run into the back of a queue in the live running lanes due to inattention / fatigue etc

[Mark Saunders]

2 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Red X enforcement on Smart Motorways is now happening so will hopefully reduce that behaviour 

It would help if those that operated the signs would remove the messages and restrictions in a timely manner’

[kevinlms]

4 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Hardly the fault of the road when a HGV driver high on drugs causes a crash.

 

I’ve witnessed many accidents where HGVs have wiped out vehicles sat on a hard shoulder or just run into the back of a queue in the live running lanes due to inattention / fatigue etc

A couple of years ago in Melbourne Australia, a similar truck with a driver on drugs and lack of sleep, took the lives of 4 police officers. He swerved from lane 4 to the emergency lane, where the police vehicles and the original speeder in a Porche were located. All vehicles written off.

 

While he has admitted liability, investigations are continuing into the trucks owner, who knew that the driver was not fit to have been driving.

[kevinlms]

11 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

It would help if those that operated the signs would remove the messages and restrictions in a timely manner’

That is absolutely no excuse. A red cross has exactly the same meaning as a red traffic light or railway level crossing flashing.

Or are you suggesting that red traffic lights & railway crossings are OK to go through, as long as you can't see anything going the other way?

 

Yes, I agree that flashing signs should be giving an accurate message, but drivers must never assume that they are showing a misleading message.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Hardly the fault of the road when a HGV driver high on drugs causes a crash.

 

I’ve witnessed many accidents where HGVs have wiped out vehicles sat on a hard shoulder or just run into the back of a queue in the live running lanes due to inattention / fatigue etc

 

I'd still much rather not be stationary directly in front of the sleepy/stoned/texting HGV driver.

[chris p bacon]

Having had a prop shaft failure a few weeks ago on the A1 near Catterick I was very grateful for the hard shoulder, as even though I was classed as an urgent recovery, It was still 2 hours till I was away.  Had that been a 'Live lane' It would have been 'interesting' for those around me.

[Reorte]

55 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

That is absolutely no excuse. A red cross has exactly the same meaning as a red traffic light or railway level crossing flashing.

Or are you suggesting that red traffic lights & railway crossings are OK to go through, as long as you can't see anything going the other way?

 

Yes, I agree that flashing signs should be giving an accurate message, but drivers must never assume that they are showing a misleading message.

 

Whilst I can hardly argue with you that they shouldn't (because you're absolutely correct)  the fact of the matter is that if restrictions are too often perceived to be unnecessary or excessive they will frequently be ignored. People have a responsibility to obey the rules but there's an unwritten one that says the rules should be appropriate. Whilst expecting perfection on the part of anyone is unreasonable (rules setters included) if the public believes they're generally getting things right they'll generally be followed (not by everyone but there are always some). But the rulemakers and enforces can't blindly demand respect without reciprocating.

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Whilst I can hardly argue with you that they shouldn't (because you're absolutely correct)  the fact of the matter is that if restrictions are too often perceived to be unnecessary or excessive they will frequently be ignored. People have a responsibility to obey the rules but there's an unwritten one that says the rules should be appropriate. Whilst expecting perfection on the part of anyone is unreasonable (rules setters included) if the public believes they're generally getting things right they'll generally be followed (not by everyone but there are always some). But the rulemakers and enforces can't blindly demand respect without reciprocating.

While I generally agree with you that the signs should be accurate.

However they aren't bus lane signs, that are merely there to give certain vehicles priority. Of which some people seem to think that they are more important than bus passengers. The reason why bus passengers get priority, is because the large number in a single vehicle.

 

The signs are there to advise people of road hazards, which may be life threatening, especially if vehicle has broken down and emergency responders or road workers are possibly there in the road way.

 

In Melbourne, we have some long tunnels on toll ways (all ours are 3 lanes each way) and it's not uncommon to see a lane closure (usually the left lane, but not always), with 40kmh speed limits. One lane has the red cross and still idiots think it doesn't apply to them.

 

I would like to think the book gets thrown at them, but somehow I doubt it. It appears that the cameras are there for the operators to monitor the traffic, but not considered good enough for charges. I despair sometimes. Why have speed limits in such places, if you don't enforce?