Road Safety Changes Poll

[morphix]

Ok a quick poll...

What are you views on the following:


1) Cyclists should be made to sit a cycling proficiency test to learn the Highway code before being allowed to ride on roads.

2) It should be mandatory for all motorists to re-seat their driving test, at least once every 10 years.

3) It should be mandatory for only motorists over a certain age (40-60) to re-sit their test every 10 years.

4) A voluntary approach to re-sitting driving tests is the best way, if there was some financial incentive, such as off-setting the test fee against car insurance, and possibly leading to lower insurance premiums.

 

[morphix]

I wonder if option 2) was used would it be high cost to implement re-testing every 10 years for everyone which wouldn't necessarily reduce accidents or improve road safety, so be a waste of time? What do people think?

 

[flecc]

Number 4 already exists, I'm speaking of the Institute of Advanced Motorists tests. Some take those and if they pass can get insurance reductions from some companies.

I'm not in favour of 1 to 3. Re-testing improves nothing, there are old drivers who are far better than many of their juniors. It's very young drivers (17 t0 24) who cause the most accidents by far, and also the accidents with the greatest severity. And a cycling test would still further reduce cycling by the young, already at a historically low level and still declining.

The status quo is fine, it's all too easy to overreact to the few nutters on the road.

 

[morphix]

Number 4 already exists, I'm speaking of the Institute of Advanced Motorists tests. Some take those and if they pass can get insurance reductions from some companies.

I'm not in favour of 1 to 3. Re-testing improves nothing, there are old drivers who are far better than many of their juniors. It's very young drivers (17 t0 24) who cause the most accidents by far, and also the accidents with the greatest severity. And a cycling test would still further reduce cycling by the young, already at a historically low level and still declining.

The status quo is fine, it's all too easy to overreact to the few nutters on the road.

Flecc but what about that startling finding that was posted earlier, that out of a random selection of 20 drivers, only 1 passed his driving theory test.

I guess a minimalist change approach, would be to make anyone involved in an accident or done for careless driving re-sit their test, assuming that isn't routinely being done already by the courts.

 

[flecc]

Flecc but what about that startling finding that was posted earlier, that out of a random selection of 20 drivers, only 1 passed his driving theory test.

I guess a minimalist change approach, would be to make anyone involved in an accident or done for careless driving re-sit their test, assuming that isn't routinely being done already by the courts.

That result doesn't mean anything in practice. There's been a huge increase in the theory test requirements over the years, but not accompanied by any improvement in driving standards. For example, I've been driving and motor cycling for over 60 years without a single claim on my insurance, but I very much doubt I'd sail easily through the theory test and could well fail it. Clearly that knowledge and driving standards are not related to any degree.

Some people naturally drive/ride well, some are not very good, some should not be on the road, and those differences are mostly due to the differences in them as people. Testing and especially theory testing will gain nothing worthwhile but will add to costs and bureaucracy, both already excessive.

The courts already order retests where it's thought desirable, and the police already give offenders the opportunity to take safety lessons as an alternative to prosecution.

 

[GaRRy]

Well I voted for 1 and 4

However for 1 I think rather than mandatory it would be better if schools got behind a sceme to encourage pupils to take a test like they did when I was a kid. Mind you as these days most schools dont seem to want to even properly educate kids I dont hold out much hope.

As for 4 As Flecc says this sort of already exists via IAM but maybe need a bit encouragement to get more people on board.

Not mad on more compulsory stuff as that just seems to lead to more and more until will need to pass a new test evey other month

 

[amigafan2003]

Number 4 already exists, I'm speaking of the Institute of Advanced Motorists tests. Some take those and if they pass can get insurance reductions from some companies.

Yup - 20% for me with a further 10% for my club membership.

I did like what my "assessor" said when we were out in my Westfield one nice sunny Sunday afternoon - we were following a bumbling old biddy at 30mph on an NSL road and I pulled out at a safe place to overtake and he shouted "just bloody floor it!". After we finished the overtake he said "we're going to have to do that more often" with a big grin on his face.

I don't think he'd been in a Westfield before

 

[neptune]

Sadly this is a waste of time, because the powers that be are so obviously not interested in reducing road deaths and injuries. If they were, we would already have automatic speed governers fitted to all motor motor vehicles to adjust their speed according to the speed limit of the road being used. In fog, or snow, motorway traffic, motorway and trunk road traffic could be automatically slowed. Lower fuel costs, less deaths, less injuries, lower insurance costs due to far fewer claims. The only people who would object are those that think that they, and they alone, are such brilliant drivers that they alone should be allowed to drive faster than anyone else.

 

[amigafan2003]

If they were, we would already have automatic speed governers fitted to all motor motor vehicles to adjust their speed according to the speed limit of the road being used.

As long as it doesn't kick in when I'm doing 120mph in the wet at Oulton Park it gets the thumbs up from me.

Who would pay for such a system to be retro fitted to vehicles though?

 

[flecc]

Who would pay for such a system to be retro fitted to vehicles though?

That's the problem, it's not as practical to introduce as Neptune thinks. Conversion costs on many existing vehicles would be huge even if possible, and I doubt the motor trade would cope with such an extensive program.

The alternative of only phasing it in on new vehicles would be out of the question. First it would kill new car sales as everyone stuck to their old one, and a mix of restricted and unrestricted vehicles would cause a big jump in accidents.

 

[morphix]

Well I voted for 1 and 4

However for 1 I think rather than mandatory it would be better if schools got behind a sceme to encourage pupils to take a test like they did when I was a kid. Mind you as these days most schools dont seem to want to even properly educate kids I dont hold out much hope.

Yeah, I agree starting from school is the best approach..I think they should bring that approach back we had in the 80's... it could be part of school lessons or an after school option and surely wouldn't be expensive to do with local volunteers etc. Many kids are riding to school and using bikes these days than ever before, so it's worth doing and perhaps some of their new found road safety wisdom will rub off on older people around them ;-)

 

[neptune]

There is an old saying, where there`s a will there`s a way. There were similar doubts expressed when tachographs were proposed for lorries and buses. Ultimately, of course it would have to be paid for by the vehicle owner. In the longer time it would pay for itself in the form of reduced fuel and insurance costs. A whole new industry would be created and thousands of jobs. Difficult? Perhaps, but it is alleged that we put a man on the moon.
The time will come soon when we have to decide if the car is a way of moving people fron A to B, or if it an instrument to be used as a means of fulfilling our sexual fantasies. And talking of costs, think of the saving to the nation if it resulted in 5% fuel saving, and as little as 10% saving in road deaths.

 

[flecc]

The time will come soon when we have to decide if the car is a way of moving people fron A to B, or if it an instrument to be used as a means of fulfilling our sexual fantasies.

I don't think either. I see the distant future as not having this form of personal transport at all, it's the only real solution to all the problems it brings.

 

[mike killay]

That's the problem, it's not as practical to introduce as Neptune thinks. Conversion costs on many existing vehicles would be huge even if possible, and I doubt the motor trade would cope with such an extensive program.

The alternative of only phasing it in on new vehicles would be out of the question. First it would kill new car sales as everyone stuck to their old one, and a mix of restricted and unrestricted vehicles would cause a big jump in accidents.

Not so sure about this.
The restricted vehicles would tend to set the legal speed on a road. Others in older vehicles would either have to overtake them or conform to the law.
As for new car sales, a huge proportion are fleet sales to companies and they would only see the benefits, less fuel used, less wear and tear. Who knows, Insurance companies might offer reductions for vehicles fitted with a restrictor

 

[flecc]

Not so sure about this.
The restricted vehicles would tend to set the legal speed on a road. Others in older vehicles would either have to overtake them or conform to the law.
As for new car sales, a huge proportion are fleet sales to companies and they would only see the benefits, less fuel used, less wear and tear. Who knows, Insurance companies might offer reductions for vehicles fitted with a restrictor

I take your point one, but human nature being what it is, they'd overtake. The 30 limit is where we drive at 40, the 70 limit motorway is where we drive at 80, that's the "common" law!

The least accidents occur when we are all at the same speed, the most at differential speeds, hence my belief that more accidents would result from the mix of restricted and unrestricted.

 

[smudger1956]

You missed out -
Mandatory cycling for 6 months for all motorists.

 

[neptune]

I am surprised, and pleased, that at least the speed limiter idea has not been dismissed out of hand. It is refreshing that people are at least seeing it as an option.

 

[flecc]

I am surprised, and pleased, that at least the speed limiter idea has not been dismissed out of hand. It is refreshing that people are at least seeing it as an option.

I honestly think that if it was a practical option it would have already been introduced, since the benefits would be as you say. As a rule governments instinctively like to control their populations in as many ways as possible, so missing such an obvious chance for so long tends to indicate problems in implementation.

 

[Scimitar]

None of the above. Just bloody well leave it alone and accept the risk. Life is a bitch and you die - simple.

 

[GaRRy]

You missed out -
Mandatory cycling for 6 months for all motorists.

Followed by another 6 on a motorbike