Jump to content
 

The non-railway and non-modelling social zone. Please ensure forum rules are adhered to in this area too!

Driving standards


hayfield
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But by that argument, tax paid on anything should be somehow ring-fenced for a related purpose; the VAT paid on railway models should be used to subsidise model railway clubs, etc.

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't. If that's the whole purpose it was created for in the first place I don't have a problem with saying that, but I wouldn't generalise, it's down to the specifics of any particular tax. Perhaps relatedly I'd say that National Insurance is also a tax, but should be ringfenced for health and public pensions, council tax for paying for anything the council's responsible for, and income tax general taxation for any purpose that needs government spending.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 16/05/2023 at 19:24, craneman said:

No, you are joining a major road and the law requires that you check before pulling out that it is safe to do so. There is no excuse for failing to check in both directions especially if it is a single carriageway and had you pulled out you could reasonably expect to be charged with driving without due care.

 

The amount of precedent for this situation is overwhelming.

But not total, a driver of a Landrover in Norfolk had both legs broken when he pulled out onto a major road.

He was not charged, the driver of the other vehicle was.

The other vehicle was a Porsche, was calculated to have been travelling at 160mph, the land rovers engine broke free and landed 20ft away.

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, TheQ said:

But not total, a driver of a Landrover in Norfolk had both legs broken when he pulled out onto a major road.

He was not charged, the driver of the other vehicle was.

The other vehicle was a Porsche, was calculated to have been travelling at 160mph, the land rovers engine broke free and landed 20ft away.

IANAL disclaimer, but I can think of a couple of reasons why that might've been the case. At 160 mph it's possible that the Porsche may well not even have been visible at the time the Land Rover started to pull out (depends on road layout obviously). The other one is that that's a speed well beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to judge, due care doesn't require covering every conceivable possibility. In the same way you're supposed to drive at a speed at which you can stop - so no defence if you go around a corner and hit a stationary vehicle that you couldn't see and couldn't stop for in time. But a moving vehicle heading towards you on the wrong side of the road at speed is very different (note that this isn't the same situation as with the police car mentioned upthread, where it was visible even though it was on the wrong side of the road). Due care and attention doesn't require allowing for that, otherwise it would be impossible to drive legally.

Edited by Reorte
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very interesting series made about the Gwent Police Collision Investigation team.

 

One incident was when a car pulling out of a garden centre was struck by a motorbike.

 

The investigation revealed that just prior to the collision the biker was doing 120mph and the car driver would not have had enough time to see him when he pulled out in a 50mph limit.

 

Proper investigation meant that what was on the face of it an open and shut case was anything but.

 

Sadly the biker wasnt prosecuted, and again its the sort of case where an 'administrative' licence cancellation would be appropriate.

 

As Road Safety charities have pointed out accident victims are often not only denied justice in the criminal courts but in the civil ones as well because accidents are often not properly investigated by The Police.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its why I've always advised to get front and rear cams fitted. Mine are passive, they come on with the ignition. There does seem to be a trend for some people with cams to intentionally create issues, just so they can post something online (see one of the 1000's of channels on YT). I've only submitted footage to police once which did result in further action.

 

Although fitted and hardwired, I actually forget there's cams running.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Coldgunner said:

Its why I've always advised to get front and rear cams fitted. Mine are passive, they come on with the ignition. There does seem to be a trend for some people with cams to intentionally create issues, just so they can post something online (see one of the 1000's of channels on YT). I've only submitted footage to police once which did result in further action.

 

Although fitted and hardwired, I actually forget there's cams running.

Although in thse cases that wouldn't really help, as a front-facing camera probably won't cover the side enough to see what's coming along the road you're pulling out into. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

I'm not sure if it would withstand the weight and recoil but my wife rather fancies fitting the remote operated twin 20mm turret fitted to Shackletons rather than a dash cam.

 

I believe the Tucker Combat Car might meet your requirements.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

I'm not sure if it would withstand the weight and recoil but my wife rather fancies fitting the remote operated twin 20mm turret fitted to Shackletons rather than a dash cam.

 

 

These things are probably cheaper. The view from the drivers' seat is apparently that poor (see the high bonnet), that young kids get run over, because parents can't see them walking in front, in their own driveways! But don't let me put you off buying one - how do people live with themselves, after running down kids?

 

https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

These things are probably cheaper. The view from the drivers' seat is apparently that poor (see the high bonnet), that young kids get run over, because parents can't see them walking in front, in their own driveways! But don't let me put you off buying one - how do people live with themselves, after running down kids?

 

https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/


They are known as wankpanzers

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 27/05/2023 at 07:29, big jim said:


They are known as wankpanzers

 

 

 

Interesting comment that only 12% of car journeys are for work. Around here I would estimate that the number of cyclists using their cycles for work or other necessary activity is less than 10%, the rest is pleasure riding, but only when it's dry and/or warm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 25/05/2023 at 11:17, johnofwessex said:

The investigation revealed that just prior to the collision the biker was doing 120mph and the car driver would not have had enough time to see him when he pulled out in a 50mph limit.

 

 

Sadly the biker wasn't prosecuted …


I’m surprised the biker was still around for prosecution even to be considered!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning, on a 50kph side road, I approached a light-controlled intersection with a 70kph main road. The traffic lights were out. In a case like that the “4 -way stop” procedure is in place - everyone stops at the stop line, and people leave in the order in which they stop. 
 

Yeah, right! As I sat at the stop line, 4 cars blasted through the intersection from the left on the main road, doing at least 70kph and likely quite a bit more than that. Eventually two more coming from the left did stop at the line and I got to advance.

Edited by pH
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sidecar Racer said:

 

 I kinda get the impression that he was'nt .

 

He was

 

Again it highlights the fact that you can only lose your licence as a result of a criminal conviction rather than as an administrative process, in this case the evidence is that you did 120mph on a public road, it should be bye bye licence irrespective if there was a criminal prosecution or not.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Having looked at the location on a map, I am concerned how someone could have lost control with enough speed to go through a fence & kill somebody.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...