Roundabouts and other driving pet peeves

[odw26]

Teenager who lost his legs in crash will 'never forgive' driver

Young footballer Adam Golebiewski was a passenger in Arran Paterson's car in Aberdeenshire in September last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes, 'fraid so. It's effective in other countries and enforced. See Canada, Australia.

It's not just about randomly pulling them over.

But it's not a reason not to do so. Especially when young lives are at stake and there's clear evidence that they are at higher risk. Isn't the Govt.'s duty of care to save lives?

Parents of victims have been crying out for something to be done. But it falls on deaf ears again.

If young people are the risk then ban young people from driving until they are 20. The governments duty is too protect the populace but also protect their rights, including the right to do potentially dangerous things

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

M6 junction 7, absolutely diabolical

 

[Ddanno]

Get wrecked twat bags

Twin Lamborghinis seized in central London supercar crackdown

Police seize 72 vehicles worth £6m in an operation across Hyde Park, Kensington and Chelsea.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Get wrecked twat bags

Twin Lamborghinis seized in central London supercar crackdown

Police seize 72 vehicles worth £6m in an operation across Hyde Park, Kensington and Chelsea.

www.bbc.co.uk

Well that would explain the cars I saw at Wellington arch...

 

[Ddanno]

Well that would explain the cars I saw at Wellington arch...

Sick of these pricks hooning around London with their compensatory motors. Noise nuisances, pollution nuisances and a danger to anyone within half a mile because they try to hit 60mph to get around a bus.

 

[Saintjay]

Probably get an fpn and six points. Plus cost of vehicle recovery and the storage costs roughly 1k.

Unfortunately if you can afford to ship two lambo's in for your summer visit. You are probably not going to be too bothered about the costs.

Was also reading some cases they are insured but the police can't check the foreign insurance. So it's just a few days inconvenience till it's sorted out.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

If young people are the risk then ban young people from driving until they are 20. The governments duty is too protect the populace but also protect their rights, including the right to do potentially dangerous things

I think what grates parents who have lost their children is that there is something they can do to reduce the risk but they are choosing not to. Other Rights are secondary to right to life.

Driving restrictions for young people needed to 'save lives'

A bereaved mum is calling for the government to introduce graduate licences for young drivers.

www.bbc.co.uk

And it's not about banning them until they are 20, but delaying and making them better drivers/experienced and ready to take passengers. Our brains that age are just not mature enough at that age and more likely to be risk seeking especially when carrying mates.

Time and again the accident rates are shown to be significantly higher especially amongst young male drivers and there's good reason for it.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think what grates parents who have lost their children is that there is something they can do to reduce the risk but they are choosing not to. Other Rights are secondary to right to life.

Driving restrictions for young people needed to 'save lives'

A bereaved mum is calling for the government to introduce graduate licences for young drivers.

www.bbc.co.uk

And it's not about banning them until they are 20, but delaying and making them better drivers/experienced and ready to take passengers. Our brains that age are just not mature enough at that age and more likely to be risk seeking especially when carrying mates.

Time and again the accident rates are shown to be significantly higher especially amongst young male drivers and there's good reason for it.

Again, where do you draw the line? Banning them would drastically cut the number of incidents, so we agree the governments sole job is not too protect life, otherwise we'd all be in bubble wrap and everything with any sort of risk associated would be banned.

If there is a practical way to police it then fine, but to me this would come across as the people in power once again punching down on those with the least power, applying blanket negative connotations to young people and then wonder why young people get disenfranchised. We can't keep constantly labelling young people as just a problem to be solved and taking away their opportunities. Alcohol is a major cause of problems in this country, should the government ban it?

 

[odw26]

We can't keep constantly labelling young people as just a problem to be solved and taking away their opportunities.

I agree with this point about young people having labels thrown at them and then people wonder why they're disenfranchised- voter apathy, lazy in the workforce, woke and sensitive etc., but I really don't think this is the place to be trying to make that argument. Cars are quite literally killing machines and as such require strict laws and regulations in order to ensure the safety not only of drivers, but of other road users, pedestrians, etc. If there is a demographic which is responsible for a large proportion of RTAs, then it is appropriate and necessary to tackle that, in the same way that older generations of drivers should have stricter regulations due to visual/cognitive impairment. Graduated licences may or may not be the way to address this, but dismissing the idea because it applies blanket negative connotations to young people is just not a viable argument when it comes to risk and safety like this.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I agree with this point about young people having labels thrown at them and then people wonder why they're disenfranchised- voter apathy, lazy in the workforce, woke and sensitive etc., but I really don't think this is the place to be trying to make that argument. Cars are quite literally killing machines and as such require strict laws and regulations in order to ensure the safety not only of drivers, but of other road users, pedestrians, etc. If there is a demographic which is responsible for a large proportion of RTAs, then it is appropriate and necessary to tackle that, in the same way that older generations of drivers should have stricter regulations due to visual/cognitive impairment. Graduated licences may or may not be the way to address this, but dismissing the idea because it applies blanket negative connotations to young people is just not a viable argument when it comes to risk and safety like this.

Men are responsible for a significantly higher proportion of road incidents than women. Should men have a different rule applied to them when it comes to driving cars?

 

[odw26]

Men are responsible for a significantly higher proportion of road incidents than women. Should men have a different rule applied to them when it comes to driving cars?

That's a very different way of approaching this topic as you're implying that it would be discrimination to target younger demographics with tighter regulations. In which case, I'd respond why it wouldn't be discrimination to enforce eye tests on the 70+ demographic by that same logic, or why if you think this is discriminatory, why having age restrictions on licences are not discrimination in the first place?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That's a very different way of approaching this topic as you're implying that it would be discrimination to target younger demographics with tighter regulations. In which case, I'd respond why it wouldn't be discrimination to enforce eye tests on the 70+ demographic by that same logic, or why if you think this is discriminatory, why having age restrictions on licences are not discrimination in the first place?

It is discrimination, what we are trying to establish is what discrimination is deemed acceptable and what isn't. If the argument for discriminating against a certain group because of their statistical likelihood to do something, you open a far reaching can of worms.

Age based discrimination is well established and accepted with age requirements on various things. The general argument is that you are not able to fully understand things / shouldn't be exposed to things until reaching a certain level of maturity. The chosen ages are pretty arbitrary and even then, not all individuals mature at the same rate. People used to have children, families, drink and work at much younger ages throughout pretty much the entirety of human history, the idea of 18 or even early 20's being the real point of adult maturity is a relatively new concept from a society and cultural standpoint. Age requirements for driving are fairly easy to enforce. Driving without passengers at a certain age, much more difficult. Are we going to advocate already stretched police forces dedicating more time to any car with a registration for a driver that is legal but may have a passenger to go chasing after them for the simple act of having a passenger, something that is NOT a crime? We decide it's safe enough to let young people loose in a car, only as long as they don't have anyone else in it?

Either they can be trusted or they can't. With respect to eye tests, I'd be in favour of mandatory eye tests at set intervals for all drivers, with the intervals getting closer as you get older. I'm not against age restrictions on things, I am against introducing convoluted measures that will primarily just make young people feel like they are being harassed and treated as a problem whilst likely doing little to solve the actual problem. It's similar to the whole porn blockers, it's a meat fisted attempt to "fix" a problem that people easily circumvent, would be a nightmare to enforce, doesn't achieve it's aims and achieves little more than making people feel the state is out of touch and simply sticking their noses in.

 

[odw26]

It is discrimination, what we are trying to establish is what discrimination is deemed acceptable and what isn't.

But you deem age-restrictions, which are a form of age-based discrimination, acceptable, so there's nothing to establish when we're discussing age-restrictions.

The general argument is that you are not able to fully understand things / shouldn't be exposed to things until reaching a certain level of maturity.

The research clearly shows that the area of the brain (the prefrontal cortex) responsible for decision-making and impulse control does not fully form until after the age of 25. I'm not in favour of placing restrictions on everything until this age, as I think we both agree this would cause large societal and cultural issues. I don't see this as a reason not to implement regulations, though, where necessary. I can understand the point about the way the graduated licence as laid out in the policy ideas mentioned earlier could be unfairly suffocating for younger generations, but I don't agree that labelling any such attempt as being unacceptably discriminatory and that policy aimed at this age bracket should not be explored.

If similar restrictions were imposed on inexperienced drivers instead of age restrictions, what would your response be then? That's data I would be very interested in- whether age is the primary contributing factor in these cases or whether it's inexperience. I would imagine it's a combination of both. We already have similar systems to graduated licences in lots of other areas of the workforce whereby more responsibility is given with greater experience. I don't see why something along those lines shouldn't be incorporated into driving licences.

People used to have children, families, drink and work at much younger ages throughout pretty much the entirety of human history

So what? Just because something used to be accepted in the past doesn't mean it's acceptable today.

I am against introducing convoluted measures that will primarily just make young people feel like they are being harassed and treated as a problem whilst likely doing little to solve the actual problem

Is that a statement specific to the graduated licences, or is that a blanket statement on any regulation targeting the 18-24 age range?

With respect to eye tests, I'd be in favour of mandatory eye tests at set intervals for all drivers, with the intervals getting closer as you get older.

So am I.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Again, where do you draw the line? Banning them would drastically cut the number of incidents, so we agree the governments sole job is not too protect life, otherwise we'd all be in bubble wrap and everything with any sort of risk associated would be banned.

You say that but here is how graduated driving licenses work in Ontario:

Get a G driver’s licence: new drivers

If you are at least 16 years old, you can apply for driver’s licence in Ontario. As a new driver, you will need to practice driving and gain experience over time. For most people, the two-step process takes about 20 months to finish. Here’s how you get a driver’s licence.

www.ontario.ca

That can take up to 2 years to complete to full driving license. Cutting deaths by around 80% amongst this group.

This is not about Govt. Being a nanny state and picking on inexperienced drivers arbitrarily and giving police blanket powers to start pulling young drivers over.

This is about risk and it's getting worse in the UK on the roads with the number of vehicles on the road - registered and unregistered. This just one way to give them more time to gain experience and reduce the death and serious accident rate amongst them.

Those who die don't get a chance to live. Surely that is what Govt.'s role should be doing. Not just ignoring the evidence because you don't want to inconvenience/discriminate against them?

And you draw the line at all new drivers not just age related but based on experience. There are those who also learn later in life and not just 18-24.

If there is a practical way to police it then fine, but to me this would come across as the people in power once again punching down on those with the least power, applying blanket negative connotations to young people and then wonder why young people get disenfranchised. We can't keep constantly labelling young people as just a problem to be solved and taking away their opportunities. Alcohol is a major cause of problems in this country, should the government ban it?

yes and a lot of the public don't know what that limit is for driving and they are looking to reduce the limit:

'Public do not know drink driving limit', says ex-traffic officer

The government plans to reduce the drink drive limit from 35 to 22mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath.

www.bbc.com

Again this is about risk and inexperience, carrying mates in the car, drinking, using mobile phones all increase risk of road accidents.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Men are responsible for a significantly higher proportion of road incidents than women. Should men have a different rule applied to them when it comes to driving cars?

Young men are and hence why insurance is so high for young, inexperienced drivers - male or female.

 

[The Seeker]

I'll give him a 10 for sticking the water landing especially since the car started to veer right.

 

[The Seeker]

Fortunately, Florida courts should go harder on this jackhole than a lot of other states would.

Driver arrested after making illegal U-turn on Florida highway killing three people

Harjinder Singh, who authorities say had entered the U.S. illegally, has been charged with three counts of vehicular homicide

www.the-independent.com

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Bank holiday weekend: Travellers warned of road and rail delays

Millions are told to prepare for disruption from traffic, rail engineering works and strikes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Traffic and train delays. Can't get away from it.