OK, call me old fashioned.... but I think the standard of driver today is generally poor OR I must have been in a coma when the government changed the rules of the road.

A selection of my latest examples... ok?

Give way = drive on, at a snail's pace, forcing the free flowing traffic on the main road to break heavily - then continue on merrily at 20 mph. This works really well at a split junction or a crossroads.

National speed limit = maximum 40 mph here folks - the longer the queue behind you the better, and the longer you can hold the queue gets you bonus points too!

Indicators = eh??????

Roundabouts = don't care what I do so long as I get off where I want to

Pedestrian crossings = aren't those stripey decorations pretty - what's that woman with the pram looking at me like that for?

Dual carrigeways = this is as much fun as bumper cars folks (indicators?)

Parking bays = Ah sure, just use as many spaces as you like, crooked parking is fashionable, and a trophy score down the next vehicle will do nicely too.

Disabled Parking Bays = Free parking!!!!!!! And not far to walk my perfectly healthy b**ks**e into the offlicence.

Seatbelts and Child Car restraints = they are for nerds. My two year old can get a much better view of the ditch when I crash - which won't be my fault of course.

Mobile phones = I trained with the russian circus in how to steer my car blindfolded, whilest reciting poetry and with just my pinky finger on the wheel! IIIII can multitask!

So a few of what appear to be the modern rules of the road here.

Feel free to add on your own.

Middle lane hogs

Vehicles who indicate to move into your lane on the right on a motorway when you're about to overtake it

Lorries who overtake on a dual carriageway up a hill (even though one may be 2mph faster than the other), causing a long queue of cars in the outside lane

Car Expert

My biggest beef is with those who don't indicate and then swurve to hit you/beep/hand gesture/shout abuse/give dirty looks when you cross the road

I've heard they're thinking of upping the hours spent with an instructor to 120 hours - I don't know how true this is, but if it is, that's an awful lot of money...but then, hopefully it'll raise the standards a bit. Maybe.

What be the current rule?

Just thought of a couple of others:

People who leave their indicator on without realising

Drivers who hold a map in their lap whilst driving (like I saw one middle lane hog do last weekend )

Car Expert

Yes, my instructor also told me they were thinking of doing something like that...I think that's how it is in Europe, where in some countries the driving test includes motorways and you have to have at least 50 hours or something.

To be honest, yes there are bad drivers, but I don't think you can stigmatise a certain group (not saying you are), as I seem to come across bad drivers of all ages, both male and female.

I think changing the driving test might not necessarily help, it's just like passing through hoops and I know plenty of people who drive really badly despite passing their tests...

A couple of old quotes:

Q Who has right of way at a roundabout?
A ME!!!

Q What do two white lines down the middle of the road mean?
A A challenge!!

Your instructor takes you through the practical and theory. You take your theory test first, and if you pass, you can take your practical test: your instructor will let you know when you are ready. If you then pass the practical, that's it...

Yes, there isn't a fixed number of hours. Theoretically you don't even need to have had any lessons...

No, my mate Barney had about 3 lessons, did his theory, then took his practical the next week. Passed first time, 1 minor. Though he'd driven before.

We're lazy. If we're in the middle lane doing 70 (ish), then you can't really complain...

Hard not to sometimes. When one is on a motorway, the vehicles on the inside lane are doing about 50-60mph, ones in the outside lane are flying miles past the speed limit. Where are the vehicles wanting to stick to the speed limit supposed to go?



What is wrong with that? There may be a gap after the overtaking car and the vehicle is indicating for the benefit of the drivers behind.

I failed my Driving Test first time! Call it unlucky, but I DESERVED to fail. It did me good! I could manuover a car, but it was lack of experience and rushing to where I wanted to be, is what I failed on.

As for the rules, I reckon they are as up-to-date as they need to be, with increasing traffic etc. If anything, the roads need to be better in turn for driving standards to improve.

Woah

Someone told me that they plan to extend the length of the driving test to an hour...

All vehicles should always keep to the inside lane unless they are overtaking (Highway Code). By all means, overtake the vehicles doing 50-60mph, but then you should go back onto the inside lane. Hogging the middle lane causes congestion and encourages undertaking. People don't realise that just because their speedometer says they're doing 70mph doesn't mean they actually are! When cars are tested, there are quite a range of actual speeds (e.g. 65-77mph) at which the car is actually travelling.

Car Expert

How do we know what speed we are travelling at then if the speedo doesn't match? It is confusing as sometimes our local roads have those emoticons which flash our approaching speed and show either a or a (smileys obviously moonlighting from the AB forums on the quiet)!

When I thought I was doing a 30 or 40 mph they show a speed like 28 or 37mph. I suppose we naturally slow down a bit when we sneak a look at the speedo.

P.S. Motorway lorries should definitely stay in the Left lane and not be allowed to overtake - they end up two abreast in the Left and middle lane for miles because one can't get past the other. Utter chaos and stress for us car drivers. Here is an for tailgaters as well.

So? If you're going faster than the inside lane, every half minute you have to move to the middle lane, overtake and then move in again. Which is surely much more annoying to everyone than if you stay in the middle lane allowing cars to overtake you on the right, and you to overtake lorries or caravans. I've never seen a situation where a middle-lane "hogger" has caused a particular problem...

If you think it's bad here you should go to Italy. Crossings are literally decorations on the road. Nothing else. And everyone has a bump in their car.

Italy is quite manic for traffic. I was in a coach once in a traffic jam, and saw a car mount the pavement entirely to try and skip the queue; unfortunately, a bus stop got in his way .

I don't think middle-lane drivers are too bad on busy motorways where pulling out is difficult and less general manœuvring increases predictability, reduces the likelihood of an accident etc. However, we do most of our motorway driving on the M74 when it's quiet - where one can drive along at 70 in the inside lane without seeing another car for a mile or so, other than the one which is 100m ahead sat in the middle lane .

Just found this :

http://www.lum.co.uk/mloc/index.html

But then because the roads are empty that car's hardly causing any disruption. Yes, they may as well (and should) drift over to the left, but the fact they're not doesn't make any difference. Which is why I don't really care about them: if it's busy, them pulling in and out is far more annoying than staying put; if it isn't, then the annoyance they cause is minimal. In my humble opinion.

I'm not saying they're annoying, it just looks a bit silly .

Ah yes, doubtlessly

Has anyone else heard this - or is my friend getting himself confused...?

I haven't heard that...but I hope it's not true!

I think it's one of those myths which go round every year (like they're going to raise the driving age to 18) but which never actually happen. Don't know though...

Ah now, there's an interesting one. Minimum driving age. To raise it - or perhaps have the restricted R period extended to 2 or 3 years. I would be in favour of extending it. Also a resit of the exam for current license holders every say 10 years? The car has to be fit for use i.e. MOT, why shouldn't the driver?

I think it would be a bit harsh to point blame at all the newcomers to driving. Besides, wasn't there a study that showed that 3 out of 4 drivers that had at least 20 years experience driving would fail the driving test if they were to take it again. So perhaps 'drivers of yesterday' would be more appropriate.

Raising the minimum driving age and extending the driving test is going to achieve very little, apart from poorer students, who are already having enough difficulty with University fees. Unless you want to raise taxes to cover the cost of an extended test. And why not add extra petrol costs into the faction?

I think the problem is the allowance for slip of standards when one becomes experienced on the road, which leads to overconfidence and a drop in overall driving standards. Once you've passed the driving test, you're free to do as you please - that's the attitude that goes, and sometimes it's the experienced drivers that revel in this. So I agree to the above point: the theoretical solution would be repeated testing of driving standards - though this would obviously be expensive. And on some of the points aforementioned, would you rather trade haste for safety? Although I do agree that there are occasions where driving too slowly is more dangerous - thus the minimum speed limit.

By the way, is it only me that notices the dreadful irony in how as a country we are meant to be 'over-PC', yet somehow the male discriminatory 'Sheila's Wheels' company eludes grasp? If it were theological or racial discrimination, I'm fairly sure there would be much more dispute.


~Wobby~

Cyclists! Biggest danger on the roads.


Why don't they have to take a test like motorists?


I've nearly run a few down, ALWAYS because I'm at a traffic light, so they've decided that they'll be pedestrians and ride on the pavement, thereby avoid the traffic light. Once through said red light, they decide they'll be vehicles and go straight onto the road either into my path, since the light has changed or into the path of someone coming from 90 degrees to them.


Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I've had to restrain myself from spinning-crescent kicking a few off their bikes from when they're ridden toward me at high speed ON THE ###### PAVEMENT!!!! On old person near me would no chance.


Yet they demand rights and I believe that a law was to be passed that essentially automatically blamed motorists in any situation where there was an accident between a motorist and a cyclist.


Oh yeah, and every Sunday near me they have cycling events. Suddenly riding in file or double-file or triple-file (I'm serious) is legal. My @r$e! Makes travelling all the more fun.


Please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against "green" travel or anyone that wants to use cycling to get fitter, but really I'm yet to meet a cyclist that can actually ride safely. And I'm yet to see a cyclist pulled over by the police. Ban the lot of them, it'll make the roads a whole lot safer!



Back to topc if driving tests, I believe that our "basic" driving test is actually harder than most European countries' emergency services' advanced test. Don't know how true that is, though.

Actually, what you've said about cyclists is quite topical. I think they are trying to do something aobut it though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/6946834.stm

~Wobby~

There are many driving insurance companies that cater only to women, because statistics show that women in general make significantly fewer claims than men.

I wouldn't exactly call it discrimination unless you consider paying more for insurance as a young driver agism (because young drivers make more claims,) paying more if you have been in accidents before discrimination, or similar.

What you've said may be topical, but please don't generalise. It's quite annoying to those of us who do cycle properly on the roads.

Yes there should be tests for cyclists, I feel. I often wince at cyclists going through town, doing things that are just plain dangerous. Cyclists should have more respect for motorists. And vice versa.

I don't think I'd have bothered learning if I'd had to do 120 hours!

I would be very against changing the driving age, even to 18. If we assume that most people take 6-12 months (dunno what the actual stats are, but that's my impression) from first learning to drive to passing their test, it means that even those with late birthdays can generally pass while in Year 13. This means they tend to have more money, they are in one place so can have consistent lessons, and they can drive more around the place where their test'll be. If you change the age to 18, these people will be leaving for uni and it becomes much more difficult to find the time/money to pass. I suppose not everyone goes to uni, but for a considerable proportion of people (including me ) it would be very annoying. And I don't think the added maturity gained between 17 and 18 (or 19 or 20) will have any real effect.

I would support retesting for older drivers. Maybe not every 10 years from when you pass, but perhaps starting from around 60. Some people you see driving wouldn't stand a chance of passing a modern test.

my grandad never took a real driving test - he learned in the army. His driving is terrifying to say the least.. I'd definitely support retesting for him, and a lot of the other older drivers I've seen.

So are you saying that the rules of the road should just be ignored if they're not convenient? How very anarchic of you. However, forgive me if I think that laziness is not really a defensibe standpoint. Besides, you're quite right to stay out if you would be overtaking another vehicle immediately or if you are in a separate line of traffic. Common sense is good: Laziness is not.

If you seriously want guidance on this I thouroughly recommend joining your local brach of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.


If you get caught doing slightly over the speed limit you may get the option of attending a "Speed Awareness Course" instead of being prosecuted: I did (and like everyone else there I was resentful and angry about the entrapment methods we felt had been used, but that is an aside). As part of this course they show you a video taken driving along a local road and ask you to identify any hazards you see. There were 24 of us on the course. The best of us spotted 14. We were then told that the pass mark for the theory driving test is 50% - or 23!


I was! As a teenager (30 years ago) for cycling along with my hands off the handlebars!

Okay, so suppose middle-class white people have fewer car accidents (I don't know if this is the case). Would it be okay if a car insurance company was started which would only insure them, and no-one else?

Of course it wouldn't: Sheilas Wheels is discriminatory if they won't insure you unless you're female (just as surely as a golf club is discrimantory if they won't admit you unless you're male). Once you're in, then it makes sense to insure people at a premium according to their actuarial risk, which takes into account all sorts of factors, including gender, age, history etc.

Okay, so they might insure men, but to quote their website:

'Sheilas' Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to offer women a competitive price'

I wonder if this would spark outrage:

'BNP Insurance is a new car insurance brand designed to offer white British people a competitive price'

I'm not saying this is right, of course, just highlighting the flaws introduced into the risk-sharing model of insurance by encouraging segregation of demographics amongst car insurance companies.

I agree that generalisations are bad. But I'm not generalising. I've held a driving licence now for over ten years. The day I see a cyclist that is riding properly, I'll gladly come and post and here and apologise. As it stands, I'm yet to see a safe cyclist.



Absolutely. But I can't respect a dangerous, unpredicatable, uncontrolled road user, whatever their mode of transport. FWIW, I'm not a road-rager and I do give cyclists ample space. Now if only they'd learn to signal their intent.....

Exactly. Just as easily, one could look from the negative approach, which essentially is the same thing, in that 'Sheila's Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to force men to pay higher prices than women'. How's that for marketing?


In a similar argument, there are many places abroad that offer one price for tourists and another for locals. The hapless tourists, unable to understand the language, cannot comprehend what is happening. Actually, I've seen this personally: to get around the system, we went with a speaker of the language, and said very little to pretend we were of the country, and of course got lower prices. However, some may say this is a good way to encourage lazy tourists to learn the language for once!


Lastly, going back to the idea of looking over 'competitive quantifying' from the negative, one may easily be drawn to the ideas of 'higher prices at Universities for <insert minority group here> that must compensate for bringing the University down a league', and perhaps the more controversial 'longer sentences in jails for <insert minority group here> because they are more likely to re-offend'. Even if we were to look at the latter idea from the positive, 'shorter sentences in jails for <insert target group here> because they are less likely to re-offend', we can see the flaws of this idea. Going on from this, one may now decide to change the reasoning behind all the positive competitive quantifying, perhaps validly, to 'because this group is more worthy'. And then the problem is clear. Perhaps this is slightly far-fetched, but to allow exemption at all is questionable, surely?


~Wobby~

I don't like this argument, as it's emotive rather than logical. The idea in this is that anyone who disagrees can automatically be branded racist. I'm not racist/sexist or anything like that. I do, however, think that if someone has never been in a car accident, they shouldn't have to pay as much insurance as someone who has been in multiple car accidents.

Logically it follows that assuming there IS a correlation between gender and likelihood to have an accident, then prices should be adjusted accordingly.

Actually, personally I believe that every case should be taken on individually, rather than relying on generalisations to judge cost, however I can certainly see the logic in the tactics used.

That's interesting; I was merely drawing a discriminatory analogy with which I'm sure people would be familiar. The two statements are direct parallels: one discriminates on the grounds of gender; the other on the grounds of skin colour. Both are banned under employment law because neither is fair. It's interesting, though, in the car insurance case and in general that we can do 'positive discrimination' - we can unfairly favour those who are perceived to be disfavoured elsewhere. Because of the history regarding women not having equal rights, it is seen as okay to bias in their favour; the other way round, though, would be non-PC. Similarly, if an insurer offered discounts to non-white people, that would be fine too; but the other way round, not so.



Yes, and conventional insurers do this. However, suppose women were more risky drivers and insurers were set up for men only - what would the reaction be then?



Yes, I'm 24 and drive a modest family hatchback in a manner befitting a sensible middle-aged man - don't speed, don't nip out unnecessarily, don't overtake going around blind bends etc. However, even with 4 years' no claims, I still pay the same as others in my age group who drive very differently to me. Actually, that's not quite fair - I got a discount last year for being a Research Fellow rather than a student . Next year I'll get married, which apparently will make me a safer driver too .

The idea of retesting older drivers has been thrown out in France for the following reasons:
1) It would be too costly for the government
2) The cost would be out of the reach of people on low pensions.
3) The older members of the population are statistically those who have least accidents.
4) Older people have many years of driving experience which compensate for not having passed a modern test. They have grown up with the road.
5) In rural society it is absolutely essential for older people to be mobile. Many people are several kilometres from the nearest shops. The non mobility of older people would be an economic disaster.
(Just to add a personal touch, I am over 60, still working, have to drive 4 kilometres to school and much further for shopping and there is absolutely no public transport any where near.)
6) Many older people lead quieter lives do not need to drive long distances on motorways or in heavy
traffic and voluntarily limit their night driving.
7) Refresher courses are available for those who can afford them.

There were other reasons but I can’t remember them all.

Every now and again an older person has a spectacular accident and the press try to drag up the arguments again. Every now and again an under- twenty five also has a spectacular accident and similar arguments come up – raise the driving age, limit the power of the engine, retest them
three years consecutively etc. etc.

I think at both ends of the age range - and in the middle - there are plenty or responsible drivers – otherwise, judging by the number of people on the road, the accident figures would be much higher.
I also think there are plenty or irresponsible over sixties and under twenty-fives - and “middle agers”.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with age. I also think that although we should all do every thing in our power to behave responsibly on the road it is sheer pie in the sky to imagine that an activity such as driving (or indeed living!) can ever be totally accident free;

I see your point, and the point about public reactions - personally I think I'd see the logic in the idea if it was more favourable towards men rather than women - and if it seemed unfavourable towards ethnic minorities. You're right, though, that my kneejerk instinctual reaction would be that it was racism/sexism. Logically, the principles would still be sound though, and that's my point, though there would be a public outcry about it, it does make sense, and it's founded on other beliefs than discriminatory ones.

Although it may be considered discriminatory towards men, the original intention was not to make life harder for men, or to work on prejudiced assumptions. It's not making the assumption that men are worse drivers simply because they are men - it's using proven statistics rather than personal beliefs.

I agree with just about all that you have said Aquarelle. An excellent post.

I can't agree, however, that is has "nothing whatsoever to do with age".
As you said, older people have added Experience, which counts for a lot. Not having passed a recent test does not mean one is a worse driver.
And statistically it is younger people who have more accidents, make more claims.

Youth tends to engender a more reckless approach to safety.
Age tends to bring more caution.

Much good driving is based on an attitude of care and safety, alertness and anticipation.

Cycling on the road is tantamount to suicide where I am. No way would I dare to ride my bike to school unless it was on the pavement (carefully!), but realistically taking my bike to school would be asking for it to be damaged, so it gathers dust in the garage.




If only drivers round here would....

The laziness comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It's not really about convenience, it's about whether they have a point. Say I'd just overtaken a lorry and was in the middle lane. In the distance, I can see another lorry but it'll take me a couple of minutes to catch it up. I'm doing 70 and there's nobody behind me. According to the rules of the road, I should move into the left lane, wait until I'm near the lorry, move back out again and overtake. But if I choose to stay in the middle lane I've inconvenienced nobody and made my life a bit simpler. So yes, I'm being lazy, but it's not affecting anyone else. In that respect I suppose I am slightly anarchic; I need to understand why a rule is there before I see the need to follow it. I can't think of a situation where staying in the middle-lane is a problem... *shrugs*


I agree. But caution can be taken too far. You can fail your test for failure to make reasonable progress; that is, waiting too long at roundabouts or driving slower than necessary. There's got to be a balance between aggression and caution. A person (and these people tend to be old) going considerably slower than they could on a road leads to traffic bunching, road rage, and dangerous overtaking moves. So to say older people tend to be more cautious and are thus better drivers, is spurious. I can't seem to find the stats for number of accidents according to age, but I'd be interested in them if anyone can.

By the way, apologies if anything I say comes across as arrogant or condescending but y'know, I've been passed all of 8 months so obviously know everything there is to know

Just sitting here reading the latest posts when I heard the most terrifying screech of brakes outside my window (we live in a very quiet cul de sac)! I waited tensely for the crash which thankfully didn't happen but it sent me rushing out the door. The car had disappeared around the corner but I heard young voices, loud music blaring on the radio etc etc as doors were slammed shut. They were probably drunk or no-one would dream of driving like that young or old!