Driving standards

[rockershovel]

On 26/02/2019 at 14:24, Baby Deltic said:

 

The trouble is they then ask what your annual mileage will be typically. If it is a second car, you might be able to say less than 10K. If they ask about any other vehicles you might drive or a company car its going to be over 40K easily. Therein begins the problem.

 

“Client Representative” was definitely a no-no, in my offshore days. “Mine Surveyor” seemed to pass muster. These days I put “Quality Manager” or “Internal Auditor” which is much better 

[SM42]

Having recently driven quite a few miles on the European mainland, I can safely say that the worst part of the whole trip was between Dover and SM42 Towers.

 

It appears that the 4 lane sections of the M25 are in fact only two lane sections. Seemingly the two left hand lanes are permanently closed as no-one drives in them. 

 

Likewise the endless roadworks on the M20 can be navigated at 45mph in the empty left lane whilst everyone is bumbling along nose to tail  at 30mph in the right lane. 

 

What are people scared of in the left hand lane?

 

It was like being back in Europe, everyone keeping right. 

 

Of course the best was the chap in the middle lane of the M40, who moved to the left to let me pass then pulled back into the middle and starting angrily flashing his lights at me. If you are going to do 60ish on an empty motorway, the left lane is the place to do it. 

 

It's no wonder the roads are so congested.  We ain't using half of them.

 

Andy

(still pumped from driving in Birmingham today)

 

 

[rockershovel]

Since you mention it, Birmingham is well up my list of Nominations for worst areas, in terms of driving standards.

 

Others, in no particular order.... M62 anywhere West of Leeds and E of the M6. A more-or-less continuous series of sliproads, often tailed back onto the main carriageway when busy, which brings out the worst in everyone.... the endless roadworks and slow sections on the M5 Oldbury viaduct (I see that serious study is being given to simply abandoning non-safety-critical sections of these works) .... really, any of the M6xx network of roads and the North West urban areas generally show general lack of road craft, lack of lane discipline and at times,outbursts of pure aggression. I passed that way last weekend and was particularly shocked by the deep furrows in the carriageways resulting from excessive HGV traffic, between the M6 and A57

 

East Anglia and the Fens can be bad, especially the HGV traffic on the minor roads, or cars making lunatic overtaking moves past long tailbacks behind agricultural machinery, but traffic is usually fairly light or at a complete standstill (notably the A11 N of Kings Lynn when the sun shines..) which mitigates things rather. 

 

Another shocker is the M6 roadworks N of the M1/A14 Junction. I passed through there last night and was overtaken by two HGV, nose to tail, cutting across all available lanes at high speed. This leads into the secondary roads between the A1, A14 and M1, especially the A605 - a minor A road, consisting of a series of blind bends, short steep gradients and roundabouts, completely lacking in passing places and  totally unsuited to any sort of HGV traffic, but carrying heavy HGV traffic trying to avoid the constant congestion on the A14 and M1 approaching the “Golden Triangle” plus a disconcerting number of people with no grasp whatsoever of the concept of “passing safely” 

 

Moving to the Nottingham/Derby area, the continuous urban sprawl which this area has become seems noted for ad-hoc “ring roads” and “through routes” (reminded me of the older sections of the North Circular and South Circular) which seem to have a rich crop of people who aren’t sure of where they are going, with predictable results. 

 

Im sure everyone will have their own list of places to avoid, but those are mine.

 

 

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, SM42 said:

Having recently driven quite a few miles on the European mainland, I can safely say that the worst part of the whole trip was between Dover and SM42 Towers.

 

It appears that the 4 lane sections of the M25 are in fact only two lane sections. Seemingly the two left hand lanes are permanently closed as no-one drives in them. 

 

Likewise the endless roadworks on the M20 can be navigated at 45mph in the empty left lane whilst everyone is bumbling along nose to tail  at 30mph in the right lane. 

 

What are people scared of in the left hand lane?

 

It was like being back in Europe, everyone keeping right. 

 

Of course the best was the chap in the middle lane of the M40, who moved to the left to let me pass then pulled back into the middle and starting angrily flashing his lights at me. If you are going to do 60ish on an empty motorway, the left lane is the place to do it. 

 

It's no wonder the roads are so congested.  We ain't using half of them.

 

Andy

(still pumped from driving in Birmingham today)

 

 

 

Regarding comparisons with driving in Europe, it’s true; being the most densely  populated country in Europe by a considerable margin, does no good at all for driving standards...

 

[johnofwessex]

While its a few years old, this report makes interesting reading

 

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2007/London Lawless Roads Report - summer 2007.pdf

 

In particular it points out that Traffic Officers are very productive in terms of arrests for 'non traffic related' issues - after all how do offenders get around?

 

In addition to this there is a suggestion that traffic policing 'bears down' on offenders

 

The current figures for Homicide deaths - about 700 compared with road deaths - 1700 indicated where the priorities should lie.

 

[Guest CLARENCE]

On 02/03/2019 at 07:36, johnofwessex said:

The current figures for Homicide deaths - about 700 compared with road deaths - 1700 indicated where the priorities should lie

Yes, but homicide deaths are surely caused deliberately, and should be investigated thoroughly, whereas road deaths are (hopefully) accidental.

Edited March 5, 2019 by CLARENCE
missing word

[johnofwessex]

6 hours ago, CLARENCE said:

Yes, but homicide deaths are surely caused deliberately, and should be investigated thoroughly, whereas road deaths are (hopefully) accidental.

 

I would argue that there is firstly except in the most unusual cases no such thing as an accident

 

Secondly they are almost always avoidable and those responsible are all to often behaving in a way that at best shows a lack of insight and at worse criminal negligence

 

More importantly however enforcement would almost certainly have a positive effect on driving standards & a reduction in the number of deaths on our roads

[Hobby]

No doubt extra enforcement would help improve driving standards but at a great cost (fully trained officers and suitable patrol cars don't come cheap)... I was thinking that the money gained in fines could be used for the extra costs. But then there's the issue that motoring organisations and many motorists (not all but a vocal minority) will complain about motorists being "picked on" and used as a "cash cow"... Personally I don't have a problem with fines being used that way but many will.

[Coryton]

35 minutes ago, Hobby said:

. But then there's the issue that motoring organisations and many motorists (not all but a vocal minority) will complain about motorists being "picked on" and used as a "cash cow"... 

 

I think it depends how it's done - when you fund anything directly from fines there is the risk (or perceived risk which is also bad) that decisions on when to fine are based on revenue generation, leading to unfair fines and concentrating on easy sources of money rather than on deterrence.

 

But if money is raised for fines and the police get more money for traffic patrols without the income to a particular force being directly linked to money raised by them from fines I think that objection becomes weaker.

 

[PhilJ W]

The answers simple, don't put yourself in the position of having to pay a fine. It's just over 51 years since I passed my test and I've never even had a parking fine.

[Enterprisingwestern]

15 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The answers simple, don't put yourself in the position of having to pay a fine. It's just over 51 years since I passed my test and I've never even had a parking fine.

 

51 years without a car, wow!!!!

 

Mike.

[PhilJ W]

22 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

51 years without a car, wow!!!!

 

Mike.

Only about 5 years in all without a car, in fact some years I've driven over 40,000 miles. 

[Reorte]

15 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

I would argue that there is firstly except in the most unusual cases no such thing as an accident

 

No. We've had this argument before but the current argument that "accident implies no-one is responsible" is an inaccurate twisting of language. An accident just means that it wasn't deliberate (unfortunately there occasionally are deliberate collisions). That anyone with half a brain might've realised a collision was a likely outcome from some dodgy driving doesn't make it any less an accident, or absolve the person who caused it of  responsibility. Trying to narrow down the definition of accident to completely unavoidable makes the word useless and has the negative effect of lumping the unintended and deliberate together.

[Nick C]

A colleague of mine, some years ago, was involved in an accident that no-one could have predicted or avoided, and was therefore definitely an accident - a tree branch fell in front of him!

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

51 years without a car, wow!!!!

 

Mike.

 

45 years and only one and that was right at the beginning when car parks with machines to pay were new, I got caught in Lancaster and fined £12, always double checked since... Having said that i take the view that I am prepared to walk a few hundred yards to where I am going rather than have to park illegally right outside my destination... Like speeding tickets, parking fines are avoidable... It's not rocket science...

Edited March 6, 2019 by Hobby

[Reorte]

On the subject of fines and restrictions, that's a two way street (and this applies to any rules). Drivers have a responsibility to stick to the restrictions, the restrictions have a responsibility to be reasonable and fair.  That doesn't justify drivers breaking rules that may be perceived to be unreasonable but when that does happen both sides need their wrists slapping.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

45 years and only one and that was right at the beginning when car parks with machines to pay were new, I got caught in Lancaster and fined £12, always double checked since... Having said that i take the view that I am prepared to walk a few hundred yards to where I am going rather than have to park illegally right outside my destination... Like speeding tickets, parking fines are avoidable... It's not rocket science...

It's not always easy to avoid parking fines. Easy to be caught at a customers premises, investigating why something doesn't work, or the customer asks a question. 

I take the view that while such a fine is a pain,  generally I'm in front!

 

Tow away zones are something quite different and it is better to be rude to said customer!!!!

Edited March 6, 2019 by kevinlms

[Hobby]

Perhaps the rules are a bit different Down Under then... It's relatively easy up here to avoid them... 

[chriswright03]

On 06/03/2019 at 12:42, Reorte said:

No. We've had this argument before but the current argument that "accident implies no-one is responsible" is an inaccurate twisting of language. An accident just means that it wasn't deliberate (unfortunately there occasionally are deliberate collisions). That anyone with half a brain might've realised a collision was a likely outcome from some dodgy driving doesn't make it any less an accident, or absolve the person who caused it of  responsibility. Trying to narrow down the definition of accident to completely unavoidable makes the word useless and has the negative effect of lumping the unintended and deliberate together.

Whether you have had this argument before or the fact that you believe it is an inaccurate twisting of language it doesn't alter the fact that when I used to deal with accidents they were called in my day RTA's they are now known as RTC's road traffic collisions precisely because of the argument.  In the far past a clever legal representative successfully argued the case that if it was an accident it could not have been his defendent's fault.  RTA was dropped not very long after that and RTC is now used. 

[Coryton]

38 minutes ago, chriswright03 said:

Whether you have had this argument before or the fact that you believe it is an inaccurate twisting of language it doesn't alter the fact that when I used to deal with accidents they were called in my day RTA's they are now known as RTC's road traffic collisions precisely because of the argument.  In the far past a clever legal representative successfully argued the case that if it was an accident it could not have been his defendent's fault.  RTA was dropped not very long after that and RTC is now used. 

 

I don't go along with the idea that an accident means that nobody was at fault; if it's necessary to avoid the term in court then fine, but I'm not going to change how I use the word myself.

 

Should we stop talking about railway accidents?

[chriswright03]

9 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

I don't go along with the idea that an accident means that nobody was at fault; if it's necessary to avoid the term in court then fine, but I'm not going to change how I use the word myself.

 

Should we stop talking about railway accidents?

I left the Police 20 odd years ago but still call them RTA's.  I am on a facebook group for retired Traffic officers and virtually without exception they still call them the same.  So I agree with that side of it but the reality of it is that it has changed in law and that I have no control over.

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, chriswright03 said:

I left the Police 20 odd years ago but still call them RTA's.  I am on a facebook group for retired Traffic officers and virtually without exception they still call them the same.  So I agree with that side of it but the reality of it is that it has changed in law and that I have no control over.

 

Changed in law - fine (though I don't like it).

 

But I'm still going to waste my time and other people's by protesting when on a forum someone argues that we shouldn't call something an accident if there is any way that it could have been prevented. 

 

Language evolves and words mean what people use them to mean - but this is a direction I don't want to see the word evolve and it seems a rather unhelpful one - it makes the word nearly useless and leaves us without another general term to mean what accident used to - "collision" only covers one form of accident and, indeed, covers deliberate collisions.

 

Suppose a child drops a plate and it breaks. "It was an accident!" they protest. "No it wasn't, I say - you should have carried it more carefully. It was a.....". What is the word I use here for an event that wasn't deliberate but could have been prevented if more care had been taken? I'm lost for words.

 

Rant over.

 

 

[chriswright03]

I think I'll leave you with that!  There are far more important things in life to fret about.

[johnofwessex]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/07/millionaires-son-jailed-for-causing-girls-death-with-dangerous-driving

 

The court heard that Boparan had been travelling at 80mph in a 30mph zone on Streetly Lane, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, before the accident.

When a car emerged in front of him from a junction, he was unable to stop and swerved head-on – at a speed calculated at 71mph – into a Jeep Cherokee driven by Cerys’s mother Tracey. Her then-husband Gareth was a passenger and Cerys was securely fastened in a rear car seat.

 

There is no doubt that he did not intend to cause a collision but his behaviour was so reckless that it should have been obvious to any reasonable person that it may well have led to serious harm.  It was no 'accident' but rather arose from a deliberate and reckless act

 

[ejstubbs]

3 hours ago, Coryton said:

Suppose a child drops a plate and it breaks. "It was an accident!" they protest. "No it wasn't, I say - you should have carried it more carefully. It was a.....". What is the word I use here for an event that wasn't deliberate but could have been prevented if more care had been taken? I'm lost for words.

 

A mistake caused by their carelessness?   OK, it's not one word.  Perhaps we could run the whole lot together to make one word, like the Germans do!

 

It's a bit like the "I didn't mean to" plea*.  I can accept that whatever-it-was wasn't done deliberately, but the point very often is that the perpetrator didn't mean not to i.e. they didn't take care to try to ensure that it didn't happen.  This is pretty much why H&S regulations require risk assessments: "I didn't mean for my employee to get crushed under the cement lorry" doesn't absolve you of responsibility if the risk that people could get run over by large vehicles moving around the building site was reasonably foreseeable and you didn't take reasonable measures to mitigate it.  In law (and not just H&S law), absence of intentionality does not automatically mean absence of culpability.

 

For that reason, I think the use of "incident" instead of "accident" for bad-things-happening-on-the-road can be useful, because it implies nothing about either intentionality or culpability.  Unlike "accident", "incident" doesn't suggest that what happened was necessarily unexpected and unintentional (which is the top definition of "accident" in the OED) with the associated implication that it was no-one's fault.  An "incident" is just something that happened; the only implication that it carries is that the 'something' was out of the ordinary and/or disruptive.  When an "incident" is identified, intentionality and/or culpability - if any - are still to be determined (usually as a result of any subsequent investigation).

 

* See also e.g. "SMIDSY" and other such non-excuses.