Driving standards

[leopardml2341]

Unfortunately, selfishness is a human trait and when taken to extremes can be abhorrent to others.

[chris p bacon]

Unfortunately, selfishness is a human trait and when taken to extremes can be abhorrent to others.

As can Jealousy.

[Derekstuart]

I agree fully with Andy and Chris (above).

 

I don't think the issue is whether people should have 4*4's/ large engines/ whatever. The issue is that drivers of all vehicles have a large responsibility for their vehicle and their driving. When you are driving a larger, heavier or more powerful vehicle that responsibility is even larger. I don't think 4*4's are more likely to be bad drivers than any others- though if someone makes a serious error in one- the result will be far worse.

 

Remember that many 4*4's aren't even obvious. At the top end you have the likes of the Range Rover or large Jeep. But do you also include Freelanders and the little Suzuki in the "no 4*4's" rule? How about the Subaru range- even the little puddle jumper is a 4WD. Do we ban them too? How about some of the newer Mazda road cars? Audi Quattro?

 

Is it the idea of 4 wheels in permanent/ temporary drive that's the problem or is it the size of the vehicle? There are some large 2WD people carriers that are the same size as a mid sized 4WD.

[alastairq]

 

 

I strongly believe that there should be a second test before one is allowed on motorways. 

 

 

Well, there was always Pass-plus?  

 

But what is hilited here reference motorways [the driving there-on] actually is a pure perception, often based on urban myth, promulgated by drivers who have really only been self-taught, after passing the test. [in other words, not been in receipt of further, formal driver education....which will be the vast majority of drivers out there, I think?}

 

But the statistics say otherwise.

 

Motorways are in fact, the safest type of road to drive upon. ..........................[not sure statistically, because I cannot be bothered to investigate, but I think dual carriageways are probably the exact opposite, danger-wise?]

 

Motorways are safe purely because there is little or nothing in the way of 'conflicting' traffic to deal with.

 

No push bikes?

 

No tractors?

 

No flocks of sheep?

 

No crossing traffic?

 

Nothing in the right hand lane, liable to suddenly stop, and turn right?

 

The list of troublesome conflicts goes on.

 

And because of the lack of conflicting traffic.....motorway traffic situations are very easy to deal with, from a novice viewpoint.

 

Because of the low levels of conflict, drivers find that higher speeds are perfectly acceptable to them...although perhaps there is a perception that motorways were primarily about 'high speeds'....whereas in fact, they were primarily about allowing traffic to get from A to B with as little hindrance as possible....the higher speeds are, essentially, a by-product.

[a lorry with a max possible speed of, say 45 mph.....and I can think of many that were of that ilk....could get from A to B, a lot more quickly, than if the driver had followed ordinary roads.]

 

But, motorways have been elevated by urban myth to the levels of being 'special'...and requiring specialised skills to drive upon them.

 

WHich is, in reality, pure myth.

 

Now, for a novice driver to be comfortable on a dual carriageway...that in itself does require skill....they can be a lot more dangerous, if only from teh aspect that too many drivers treat dual carriageways with the same mindset as they do motorways.......when in fact, DC's are a totally differnt beast altogether......and become a dangerous environment if one's mindset has failed to recognise this.

 

[As a classic example of the ilk....what about the A1 in all its original manifestations?..It still possess side roads which abut onto the DC as a tee-junction, no slip roads, no deceleration lanes,crossing over the central reservation to access the other side, or straight over, etc etc.....]

 

And I would hope, most Cat B driver training involves some usage of dual carriageways. [i know I used to use them for cat B...mandatory for cat C]

Edited August 15, 2015 by alastairq

[Torn-on-the-platform]

Mr Torn on the platform,

 

A well balanced and sensible argument. Though I do find it a little unusual to suggest that the bmw stereotype is wrong, and yet the audi or megane stereotype is correct. A lot of idiots have either old bangers as they can just scrap and replace after the accident, or high powered cars that can cause the accident and then use high power to avoid the actual impact (at least that's how they perceive it until the accident actually does involve them).

 

With regards to 4*4- I think the drivers need to be guided into driving more responsibly- many 4*4 drivers are well aware of how dangerous their vehicle can be to others if abused and drive appropriately- but many do not. The problem is that once you ban 4*4's because you don't really approve of them, then how about banning 4 litre V8s? No one needs that level of power- I don't but I wouldn't part with it for anything now that I have it- and again, there are plenty of people with high powered cars that do abuse other road users. Once you've banned V8's then what?

 

Do you see the issue? Where do you stop. NEVER give the government an opportunity to ban anything as once they do, they seldom stop.

 

Thanks for replying Derek. I'm not saying that the bmw stereotype is dead wrong, and that stereotypes I put forward are definitely correct. They are more just observations that have come from my driving experience.

 

I didn't expect my comments to meet with universal approval, especially the one about 4x4s as I'm sure that there are a fair few RMWebbers who drive a 4x4 and would take it quite personally. I'd like to stress that I'm NOT talking about banning 4x4s. I'm also not talking about increasing the tax on them simply because I don't like them. For the sake of fairness, I suppose that I should extend my comments to cover all overpowered 'gas guzzlers'. The government has a responsibility to protect the environment for the future, and is apparently short on money for vital areas such as the NHS, why not put a bit more tax on the cars that (often) needlessly form part of the problem? They would still be available for anyone to purchase, but with a bit more incentive not to, and look at the more efficient alternatives. The reason I picked on 4x4s alone, is that the bigger ones are sometimes too big and powerful relative to the skill of the driver - the Chelsea Tractor stereotype for example. Not that anyone in government would read this, but I would also hope that if this kind of policy were to be adopted, it would be possible to apply for exemptions on a case by case basis.

 

In the future I may find myself in the situation where I would like to consider one of the cars above. If I were going for a less environmentally friendly car I would happily accept the added tax, though I would like to think I would be looking at buying something more efficient.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Torn-on-the-platform

[alastairq]

Re- 4x4's?

 

A vehicle is a vehicle is a vehicle...regardless of it's shape, or mechanical abilities.

 

But we have become a nation where perception is more important than fact.

 

I drive,as a daily driver, a Daihatsu Fourtrak.

 

It is a box.

 

It looks tatty

 

It is quite rusty in parts.

 

It is perceived as an archetypal 4x4.

 

Yet, in all the time I have used it, probably less than 0.5% of its life has actually been spent in four wheel drive.

 

In fact, one should never drive it on tarmac, [or even, good grippy surfaces] in 4- wheel drive.

 

So...is it really a 4 wheel drive?

 

Or, simply, does it merely have the capability? [it can tow a genuine, factory-permitted, 3 1/2 tonnes, however......so does that make it, in reality, a tractor?]

 

When looking at a vehicle's capability off road [as in, off tarmac/concrete.....off road being, any other type of surface, regardless]....the biggest single factor in  maintaining some sort of movement across the ground..is ground clearance.

 

[Ask Anybody who goes trialling?]

 

Thus...if ground clearance were a  criteria, my Dellow should be banned from our streets, because it has a reasonable off-road capability...[as do most cheaper cars up until the late 1950's?]...including all Ford Pops.

 

The Tata Indica [Rover street-something]....should be banned, because two young students once drove one from London to Delhi, with nothing more than a pre-journey service, suffering from  little more than a puncture to contend with. [beyond the capabilities of today's standard road cars]

 

The problem with cyclists, 4x4's, people carriers, slower speeds on motorways, etc etc.....is all perception...rather than fact.

 

But, disposing of perception does not suit those amongst us who seek to influence the way we think.

Edited August 15, 2015 by alastairq

[Torn-on-the-platform]

 

But, motorways have been elevated by urban myth to the levels of being 'special'...and requiring specialised skills to drive upon them.

 

WHich is, in reality, pure myth.

 

Now, for a novice driver to be comfortable on a dual carriageway...that in itself does require skill....they can be a lot more dangerous, if only from teh aspect that too many drivers treat dual carriageways with the same mindset as they do motorways.......when in fact, DC's are a totally differnt beast altogether......and become a dangerous environment if one's mindset has failed to recognise this.

 

[As a classic example of the ilk....what about the A1 in all its original manifestations?..It still possess side roads which abut onto the DC as a tee-junction, no slip roads, no deceleration lanes,crossing over the central reservation to access the other side, or straight over, etc etc.....]

 

And I would hope, most Cat B driver training involves some usage of dual carriageways. [i know I used to use them for cat B...mandatory for cat C]

 

 

I've hit like for this post because I agree with you regarding your dual carriageway point, but you are allowed to practice on these before you pass your test.

 

However, I can't agree with your points about motorways not being 'special'. Whilst I wouldn't use the word 'special' to describe them myself, as you have pointed out they are vastly different to normal roads. Bad driving doesn't only have to compromise safety. For example, if someone is driving in the wrong lane because they haven't been taught which lane to be in, they will cause pockets of congestion as people overtake them, a situation that could be avoided with better knowledge of how the road works.

 

Pass plus is a good initiative but its really only about bringing insurance down. It isn't compulsory, and a few of my friends have been offered the certificate by their driving instructors without actually providing the lessons, so what's the point in that?

 

Your next post about 4x4s - please don't take my comments out of context. At no point have I said I want to ban 4x4s. I agree that a lot of the points on here are perception rather than fact, and that's what give us different viewpoints and makes for lively and interesting discussion. I have made it clear through my posts that it is my opinion derived from my observations.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Torn-on-the-platform

[MJI]

I agree fully with Andy and Chris (above).

 

I don't think the issue is whether people should have 4*4's/ large engines/ whatever. The issue is that drivers of all vehicles have a large responsibility for their vehicle and their driving. When you are driving a larger, heavier or more powerful vehicle that responsibility is even larger. I don't think 4*4's are more likely to be bad drivers than any others- though if someone makes a serious error in one- the result will be far worse.

 

Remember that many 4*4's aren't even obvious. At the top end you have the likes of the Range Rover or large Jeep. But do you also include Freelanders and the little Suzuki in the "no 4*4's" rule? How about the Subaru range- even the little puddle jumper is a 4WD. Do we ban them too? How about some of the newer Mazda road cars? Audi Quattro?

 

Is it the idea of 4 wheels in permanent/ temporary drive that's the problem or is it the size of the vehicle? There are some large 2WD people carriers that are the same size as a mid sized 4WD.

 

My large 4x4 is actually smaller in length and width than many larger saloons, infatc the biggest BMW Minis are not much smaller.

 

It even handles OK for a large live axled lump due to advanced hydraulics.

 

But when I go for a drive it brings a smile to me, a good view, goes anywhere, quite comfy.

 

It was designed for people like me, a go anywhere car with high practicality and for families.

 

And to cap it off, it is also British.

[MJI]

Thanks for replying Derek. I'm not saying that the bmw stereotype is dead wrong, and that stereotypes I put forward are definitely correct. They are more just observations that have come from my driving experience.

 

I didn't expect my comments to meet with universal approval, especially the one about 4x4s as I'm sure that there are a fair few RMWebbers who drive a 4x4 and would take it quite personally. I'd like to stress that I'm NOT talking about banning 4x4s. I'm also not talking about increasing the tax on them simply because I don't like them. For the sake of fairness, I suppose that I should extend my comments to cover all overpowered 'gas guzzlers'. The government has a responsibility to protect the environment for the future, and is apparently short on money for vital areas such as the NHS, why not put a bit more tax on the cars that (often) needlessly form part of the problem? They would still be available for anyone to purchase, but with a bit more incentive not to, and look at the more efficient alternatives. The reason I picked on 4x4s alone, is that the bigger ones are sometimes too big and powerful relative to the skill of the driver - the Chelsea Tractor stereotype for example. Not that anyone in government would read this, but I would also hope that if this kind of policy were to be adopted, it would be possible to apply for exemptions on a case by case basis.

 

In the future I may find myself in the situation where I would like to consider one of the cars above. If I were going for a less environmentally friendly car I would happily accept the added tax, though I would like to think I would be looking at buying something more efficient.

 

 

Tax on fuel, the more fuel a car uses, the more tax it pays = fair

[Derekstuart]

Alistair, you have identified the same mathematical formula that says air travel is the safest means to get from A to B. Allow me to explain using the airline example.

 

A 747 flies London to New York, work it to 3,000 miles. It has 500 people onboard. That is 1 million, 500 thousand passenger-miles. Multiply that by the number of daily flights and you can see that with an air crash averaging once every 6 months and there being X flights per day that you have to travel a staggering amount of miles by air before you are involved in an accident- statistically speaking.

 

 

Now the same principle applies to motorways. I did 700 miles on Thursday. Many others on that day travelled 100's of miles. Because of the longer distance you travel of course the average miles between incidents increases. Now if you have a look at this in terms of how often accidents happen to people in terms of months apart, you will find that there's a completely different answer. I don't have that answer to hand although I had to compile it once for a lecture I was giving on road safety some years ago. But the statistics don't really matter as you can make them up to substantiate ANY answer you want to.

 

For example, I demonstrated also that a double decker bus was the most environmentally friendly vehicle. Using the same data, just slightly re-arranged I also demonstrated that a double decker bus was more polluting that Concord.

[Derekstuart]

Martin,

 

You would put a tax on fuel? What about my lawn mower? What about my generator? Have you no heart?

 

Seriously though, I think fuel is already well enough taxed. Please don't give the government any more ideas to increase it. People have long since campaigned to abolish road tax and to put it on fuel; well the government wasn't sure, so it compromised and did HALF the proposal-- it increased the fuel tax but never cancelled road tax.

[alastairq]

 

 

Your next post about 4x4s - please don't take my comments out of context. At no point have I said I want to ban 4x4s. I agree that a lot of the points on here are perception rather than fact, and that's what give us different viewpoints and makes for lively and interesting discussion. I have made it clear through my posts that it is my opinion derived from my observations.

 OOOh, don't for a moment think I was taking a pop    .....I was merely making the point about perceptions.....really.

 

 

RE-statistics? Well, let's face it, we don't often hear about collisions on motorways..[but, when we do, they generally are of the noticeable nature.]

 

Equally, I am aware of how a single event can skew a 'statistic'.....for example, one severe coach crash on a road, which may kill/injure many people, can be taken as 'raising the death/injury' rate on that road disproportionately.

 

Yes, motorways are safer roads to drive on, purely from the viewpoint of little if any really 'conflicting' traffic.  The same rules of lane usage apply to dual carriageways as they do to motorways.

 

Middle lane hoggers don't necessarily do so because they are ignorant of the rules.

 

Many do so because they deliberately intend to do so.

 

This can arise from things like, a basic insecurity about driving in general and, [brought on by that urban myth I referred to], insecurity about motorway driving. 

 

A common cause of insecurity of drivers occurs when a driver finds that, because of their general lack of skill, they find themselves 'trapped' in the left lane, behind  a slower vehicle.....trapped by the volume [and approach speed] of vehicles coming up from behind.

 

This isn't helped by the general attitude of the faster-moving drivers, who refuse/fail to consider whether that vehicle in the left lane, may want to pull out to pass a slower vehicle, or not.  Most simply could not care.

 

Since the middle lane hogger may lack the skill/understanding, of how to avoid that situation using mirrors and indicators....and forward planning....their solution to the problem then becomes, stay in the middle lane.

 

This becomes a habit. Life is easier. I reckon we all do it to one extent or the other....especially with urban dual carriageways?  Especially when the left lane can be littered with parked vehicles here and there?

 

Staying out becomes a lot easier...less work to do...so it becomes a habit?

 

Combine the easy-life habit, with the myriad of distractions that drivers find acceptable to indulge in, within the vehicle, and one can soon find oneself on a near empty motorway [or, DC], still pootling along in the  middle lanes.

 

Don't get me wrong, folks, I am not condoning the behaviour....but simply putting the other side.

 

Everything a novice [or, otherwise] driver needs to know about motorways is included within the Highway Code.

 

Driving behaviour on a motorway should be no different to driving behaviour on a dual carriageway.

 

I wonder why it is, however?  

Edited August 15, 2015 by alastairq

[Derekstuart]

Alistair,

 

taking the worst examples of both M and A roads:

M6 1999-2010 saw the equivalent of 110 accidents per mile, resulting in 265 deaths

A215 1999-2010 saw 23 deaths and 284 crashes per mile.

 

On that basis, one would assume that you are more likely to be involved in an accident on an A road, but if it's a motorway you are more likely to be killed. However, these statistics (URL below) are somewhat misleading in the sense of accidents per mile. For example, the M1 and M6 are the two longest motorways, and yet we know (or strongly suspect) that accidents are centred around certain parts of it- so if (just as an example) we were to say that only half of the M6 was really prone to accidents then you would say it is 220 per mile for the rest. Likewise, the A215 is only 10 miles long so it's accidents divided by its length makes it quite nasty- but in reality, it's one bad junction.

 

Even the real experts- those who study and number crunch all day are coming up with conflicting opinions on which method of travel is safer.

 

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975564 (and this data is even contradicted by the RAC and AA) So I cannot agree nor disagree with you. Instead I am going to cover my house in cotton wool, sit inside and brick up the windows and doors instead.

[MJI]

Martin,

 

You would put a tax on fuel? What about my lawn mower? What about my generator? Have you no heart?

 

Seriously though, I think fuel is already well enough taxed. Please don't give the government any more ideas to increase it. People have long since campaigned to abolish road tax and to put it on fuel; well the government wasn't sure, so it compromised and did HALF the proposal-- it increased the fuel tax but never cancelled road tax.

 

 

There is already a tax and it is enough

 

Also red diesel for some uses

[Steve K]

Just been cut up by a big black BMW.

 

By the way, what is the difference between a hedgehog and a Porche

One of them is spelled correctly?

[Horsetan]

....Also red diesel for some uses

Yes, for tarmacking drives and moving large quantities of cabling / scrap metal.

[alastairq]

 

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975564 (and this data is even contradicted by the RAC and AA) So I cannot agree nor disagree with you. Instead I am going to cover my house in cotton wool, sit inside and brick up the windows and doors instead.

 

 

Go on..be a devil, take a wee risk now and again?  

[Derekstuart]

I take enough risks every time I put something controversial on this forum, wondering if Mr York might be hovering about

[jjb1970]

The problem is that there is now a deep suspicion of taxes purporting to be based on incentivising lower environmental impact technologies as many perceive them rather to be driven by gesture politics and just plain revenue raising. I'm not actually against the idea in principle but assessing the environmental impact of a vehicle is way more complicated then whether it is a 4x4 or even just looking at its emissions and too often it does feel that the argument is driven more by resentment at those who drive expensive 4x4's than rational environmental argument. Obviously people are free to hold their own opinions and if people don't like 4x4's then fair enough but don't cloak it under a concern for the planet. Modelling carbon impact in particular is notoriously difficult and the brochure emissions of most low emission cars are nothing like as low as they claim to be in the real world as a result of how they are tested.

[Derekstuart]

I am against CO2 reduction.

 

Trees and plants need CO2 to 'breathe'. Simple solution is to stop chopping down trees- South America might be the worst for it, but we're still doing it here.

 

As for politicians- I think it's more simple than that. As long as they are SEEN to be doing something, generally joe public leaves them alone (it's what they're NOT seen to get up to that worries me)

[MJI]

The problem is that there is now a deep suspicion of taxes purporting to be based on incentivising lower environmental impact technologies as many perceive them rather to be driven by gesture politics and just plain revenue raising. I'm not actually against the idea in principle but assessing the environmental impact of a vehicle is way more complicated then whether it is a 4x4 or even just looking at its emissions and too often it does feel that the argument is driven more by resentment at those who drive expensive 4x4's than rational environmental argument. Obviously people are free to hold their own opinions and if people don't like 4x4's then fair enough but don't cloak it under a concern for the planet. Modelling carbon impact in particular is notoriously difficult and the brochure emissions of most low emission cars are nothing like as low as they claim to be in the real world as a result of how they are tested.

 

People who hate 4x4s

 

Do NOT ask me for help in floods or snow, their tofumobiles can stay stuck for all I am concerned.

 

My car is 11 years old and should last to at least 20, parts are cheap and almost everything is available, it is British designed and built, it takes up less road space than some huge people carriers, or even mid range saloons, and is not THAT thirsty.

 

People are only jealous of other peoples cars because they are not prepared to buy a car they actually want.

[newbryford]

I am against CO2 reduction.

 

Trees and plants need CO2 to 'breathe'. Simple solution is to stop chopping down trees- South America might be the worst for it, but we're still doing it here.

 

But the South Americans are chopping down trees to raise more beef cattle to supply to drive-thru fast food outlets............. Less drive thrus means less C0₂........

 

Catch 22?

[hayfield]

People who hate 4x4s

 

Do NOT ask me for help in floods or snow, their tofumobiles can stay stuck for all I am concerned.

 

My car is 11 years old and should last to at least 20, parts are cheap and almost everything is available, it is British designed and built, it takes up less road space than some huge people carriers, or even mid range saloons, and is not THAT thirsty.

 

People are only jealous of other peoples cars because they are not prepared to buy a car they actually want.

 

 

Martin 

 

I guess I and others who live in suburbia do not hate all 4 x 4 wheel drivers, some possibly like yourself have good reason to have one. However these cars are not only aimed at those who need the 4 wheel drive facility but also to those who want one as a fashion statement.

 

Again no problem with a fashion statement providing you use it with consideration to other road users. In town there is a breed of selfish driver who has no respect to other road user and I guess pedestrians, many (but not all) drive Chelsea tractors and act as if they own the road. Just go past any private school  at either the beginning or end of the school day and observe, or go to a supermarket or gym in an affluent area.

[Derekstuart]

John, I have a fairly high powered V8 Jag and I drive it responsibly. Yet others who have cars with that power do not. It isn't just 4*4's that attract bad drivers.

 

 

On a separate note, as I said earlier I manage a transport company. I have identified a case of unacceptable driving from one of my staff today. I suspended him on the spot and he is to come and see me on Thursday. SOMEONE has to take a stand against bad driving. I am doing MY bit. (I cannot prejudice my enquiry, but if I was a driver in the same situation I'd be looking for a new job...)

[hayfield]

Derek

 

As I said whilst most cars have stereotypes who drive them, there are also many who own these same vehicles who do drive well and are considerate. We have some drivers who are very good and some well below par (not just driving standards) but it is so hard to get good employees who care and have acceptable standards.

 

 

My daughter drives a BMW, yet in some ways does not confirm to the stereotype (southern) driver. However look at the type of vehicle in front of you and I guess you will be able to guess 9 times out of 10 that persons driving ability/standards. Having said that the more rural you go the better the attitudes of drivers become whatever car is being driven