Driving standards

[Titan]

7 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Not consciously aware of managing it yourself in heavy traffic worries me somewhat 😄

 

Not being consciously aware is exactly how it should be.  The more that you can do without having to think about it, means that there is more brain power available for anticipating others manouevers, reacting sooner and avoiding accidents.

 

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Our Porsche was quicker to 60 as an auto that a manual version, and I felt around fast country lanes the auto was far easier and always in the right gear where as the steering wheel paddles were not as easy to use and definitely slowed progress, it all depends how the auto box is programmed and if it has the appropriate sport/comfort setting correctly sorted.

 

Autos can be quite good, but one thing they can't do, is anticipate when you are just about to overtake and be in the right gear before you need it.  You can of course manually intervene, but that takes away some of the point of it being automatic in the first place.  Modern Autos are even worse in this respect, as with fly by wire if you floor it it is merely a request to the computer, which will carefully modulate the throttle and time the gear change to what it thinks is appropriate for various reasons (smooth gear change, emissions etc) that you don't care too much about when you just want to go, and inevitably introduces delay between you requesting full throttle and actually getting it.  At least in the pre-electronic age you knew if you put your foot down you were getting full throttle right away as the pedal was directly connected to the throttle butterfly, and the gearbox kickdown cable attached to the throttle ensured that the gearbox changed down as fast as it could.

[Reorte]

26 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Not consciously aware of managing it yourself in heavy traffic worries me somewhat 😄

 

It shouldn't do, because with a bit of practice and experience (and you should be most of the way there by the time you pass your test) it's just not one of those things you have to deliberately put any concentration towards, any more than you have to actively think about where you put your legs whilst walking. It's not the same as not paying attention or responding, it's about the overall control of the vehicle, just as you don't walk in to a wall by thinking about not trying to put your feet in a position where you would, but simply by not carrying on moving in that direction. The subconscious takes care of moving the legs appropriately, although you can of course pay more direct attention to them if you need to.

 

It's the same with steering - you don't actively think "I need to move the wheel now by so many degrees in order to turn appropriately" - where you're steering the car to is very conscious, but the mechanics of doing it are subconscious.

 

edit: beaten to it!

Edited June 24, 2022 by Reorte

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, Titan said:

 

Not being consciously aware is exactly how it should be.  The more that you can do without having to think about it, means that there is more brain power available for anticipating others manouevers, reacting sooner and avoiding accidents.

 

 

Autos can be quite good, but one thing they can't do, is anticipate when you are just about to overtake and be in the right gear before you need it.  You can of course manually intervene, but that takes away some of the point of it being automatic in the first place.  Modern Autos are even worse in this respect, as with fly by wire if you floor it it is merely a request to the computer, which will carefully modulate the throttle and time the gear change to what it thinks is appropriate for various reasons (smooth gear change, emissions etc) that you don't care too much about when you just want to go, and inevitably introduces delay between you requesting full throttle and actually getting it.  At least in the pre-electronic age you knew if you put your foot down you were getting full throttle right away as the pedal was directly connected to the throttle butterfly, and the gearbox kickdown cable attached to the throttle ensured that the gearbox changed down as fast as it could.

At least we all have opinions. 😉

[fulton]

28 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Modern Autos are even worse in this respect, as with fly by wire if you floor it it is merely a request to the computer, which will carefully modulate the throttle and time the gear change to what it thinks is appropriate for various reasons (smooth gear change, emissions etc) that you don't care too much about when you just want to go, and inevitably introduces delay between you requesting full throttle and actually getting it.

Just reflecting, on overtaking, I cannot remember the last time I overtook another moving vehicle on a non duel carriageway, living in the south east maybe it is the sheer volume of traffic on modern roads, similarly main beam never gets used there is always another vehicle in sight or the road is lit. I drive an automatic Ford Connect van, it deals with all situations very well, my last car an automatic Toyota Aygo only got caught out when coming up to a roundabout, there would be a gap, put your foot down, the computer would have a think, "I know lets try first", the small engine would scream away!

[PhilJ W]

[PhilJ W]

[kevinlms]

On 23/06/2022 at 19:45, Reorte said:

 

Automatic gearboxes are one of those things I just don't see the point of. I don't have a problem with a car that simply doesn't need gears (e.g. an electric), but if they do then automating them is just automating something that should be pretty much subconscious by the time you've passed your test. Yet another of those "conveniences" that just leave me shaking my head.

 

Obvious exceptions for people who for whatever reason would have trouble physically driving a manual.

Some people can never get the co-ordination right between clutch/accelerator/handbrake and it is just 'too hard'. Should they endlessly take driving lessons to overcome that fault?

Luckily freedom of choice, is still the thing in most countries, especially when choosing which vehicle to buy!

 

I spoke to a customer once who managed a large vehicle fleet here in Australia. He told me that the additional slight fuel cost of a fleet of automatics, was considerably cheaper than the endless repair bills of replacing clutches and sometimes gearboxes. The ones who got to chose whether they wanted a manual or automatic, were often the worst offenders!

 

Some people are great at driving manuals, but not everyone is. Personally I don't mind them, but since I had automatic fleet vehicles for years, I'm out of practice!

[leopardml2341]

On 24/06/2022 at 09:22, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there.

Maybe that's due to your truncation of the quoted text?

 

But in any case,  probably for the best. 🙂

Edited June 25, 2022 by leopardml2341

[johnd]

14 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Reminds me  of the old Marty Fieldman sketch (BBC TV) , probably upset the politically correct brigade to  repeat on air these days.  comedy far better in days gone by people just laughed and took it for what it was, just a bit of fun !   

[johnofwessex]

I see that it will shortly be possible for the courts to sentence drivers to life imprisonment if they kill

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61951964

 

What I don't understand though is why, and using this case as a 'for example' there are not much stiffer sentences, in line perhaps with firearms offences for those who play the fool with a vehicle even of they don't hurt anyone because of the risk they pose to others.

 

Clearly if I were to walk down my road randomly shooting, assuming I were to survive my contact with The Police, I cant imagine that I would be out on bail or indeed out of prison fr a very very long time.

[PhilJ W]

There should be an automatic life time driving ban in such cases as well.

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

I see that it will shortly be possible for the courts to sentence drivers to life imprisonment if they kill

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61951964

 

What I don't understand though is why, and using this case as a 'for example' there are not much stiffer sentences, in line perhaps with firearms offences for those who play the fool with a vehicle even of they don't hurt anyone because of the risk they pose to others.

 

Clearly if I were to walk down my road randomly shooting, assuming I were to survive my contact with The Police, I cant imagine that I would be out on bail or indeed out of prison fr a very very long time.

They were discussing this new legislation on the radio the other day and it seems a bit draconian, it’s fine if the vehicle in question was being driven in a dangerous manner and a subsequent crash injures or kills an innocent party, but just suppose it is a genuine moment of lack of attention, for example a cyclist comes up fast/slow on the inside when the vehicle is turning left and the worst happens, it might well land the driver in jail with a life sentence, seems a bit OTT to me, everyone can have a genuine accident even though ultimately the fault lays with the driver.

 

Unless the radio content was a bit sensational for the sake of it, it doesn’t seem quite right.

[boxbrownie]

I’ve been trying to find more information, I am assuming it is for dangerous driving only?  I assume careless (which would cover the above scenario I hope) driving would receive a lesser sentence?

 

Might be a bit of a minefield.

[Reorte]

9 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I’ve been trying to find more information, I am assuming it is for dangerous driving only?  I assume careless (which would cover the above scenario I hope) driving would receive a lesser sentence?

 

Might be a bit of a minefield.

It is a tricky one for the reasons you give. There's no doubt that there are drivers on the road whose behaviour is so utterly reckless that it would be an entirely appropriate response, but since no-one's perfect either there's always the risk that any of us could kill someone. It's very unlikely with a sensible driver, but spread over the number of people driving (many, many millions) it'll happen to someone sooner or later. So tied to dangerous driving it makes sense, although there's the danger of "well it was obviously dangerous driving if someone died."

[PhilJ W]

Don't forget that such a sentence is only applied after due process of law. 

[Grovenor]

Wondered how they managed a head on on a dual carriageway as per report. Google maps shows the road in question is just a single carriageway 2 lane road.

[PhilJ W]

5 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Wondered how they managed a head on on a dual carriageway as per report. Google maps shows the road in question is just a single carriageway 2 lane road.

Just sloppy reporting.

[ejstubbs]

43 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Don't forget that such a sentence is only applied after due process of law. 

 

Precisely.  This is why we have a court system: to examine the facts of each case and, as far as possible, hand down judgements & impose punishments appropriate to those facts.

 

As johnofwessex pointed out, at present it is not really possible for the courts to impose sentences for the most egregious offences committed with a motor vehicle commensurate with those available for offences involving other potentially deadly objects such as guns and knives - or even just hands, fists and feet.

[jcredfer]

8 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I’ve been trying to find more information, I am assuming it is for dangerous driving only?  I assume careless (which would cover the above scenario I hope) driving would receive a lesser sentence?

 

Might be a bit of a minefield.

 

It's worth remembering that the "Life" is the maximum that may be awarded, {which wasn't the case before}.  It's still the decision of the court to impose "upto the Max", as is appropriate to the case in hand.

 

 

[peanuts]

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, peanuts said:

 

That's what happens when you ask cowboy builders to make you a garage!

 

Mike.

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, peanuts said:

Beautiful house?

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, peanuts said:

 

I find this offensively sexist in its presumptions. Perhaps she's found herself a beautiful husband? Or partner of any orientation?

[Titan]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I find this offensively sexist in its presumptions. Perhaps she's found herself a beautiful husband? Or partner of any orientation?

 

So now, in order to avoid offence, if we are to mention a perfectly possible and not unusual situation, that does not in any way exclude others - it explicitly says "may" - we have to explicitly mention all other possible sexual permutations and combinations of beauty in order to not offend someone?

Edited June 29, 2022 by Titan

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

So now, in order to avoid offence, if we are to mention a perfectly possible and not unusual situation, that does not in any way exclude others - it explicitly says "may" - we have to explicitly mention all other possible sexual permutations and combinations of beauty in order to not offend someone?

 

Whilst at the same time maintaining a sense of humour and the ridiculous!