Why?

I make sure I can use mine before I go out onto the road.

Every time you ever get into an unfamiliar car, including courtesy cars and works pool vehicles?

Given that:

1. It was a Micra.

2. She was only putting a fiver of fuel in

3. She didn't exhibit knowledge of the car's fuel cap

4. She didn't exhibit proficient usage of the clutch during manouevring

is it possible that she had actually just collected a courtesy car and wasn't entirely familiar with it?

Rob.

51 plate micra with baby on board sticker.

Even so having an unfamilar car is no excuse for any of it. When your on the road or forecourt you should be proficent. It's not about my time it's about the fact this women just couldn't drive properly.

"Sorry officer, I didn't see that motorbike on my right, this is a new car and I am not quite use to it....is he ok?"

Every time you ever get into an unfamiliar car, including courtesy cars and works pool vehicles?

Am I odd in that I make sure I know all this whenever I drive a car that isn't mine? I drove my dads MGB on the weekend and that took me 20 minutes to figure out reverse (Boy that was interesting). Didn't leave the compound till I knew though.

Your missing the point a little here getting hung up with the details. She might have all the issues in the world but she will at some point cause a much bigger issue.

51 plate micra with baby on board sticker.

Courtesy cars aren't always new, nor are BOB stickers always fixed to the inside of the car.

"Sorry officer, I didn't see that motorbike on my right, this is a new car and I am not quite use to it....is he ok?"

Lack of observation is one thing, misjudging the biting point of a car is totally another. When learning to drive they teach you how to control a car safely *when you stall*...because it happens, and the important thing isn't to never stall, it's to not cause an accident when it happens.

Rob.

Perhaps one or both of you would like to try and explain why you associate ready access to a motorway with the ability to drive on one whilst using the lanes correctly?

So you can demonstrate your proficiency to an examiner whilst actually driving on a proper 3 lane motorway.

I'm not associating ready access to a motorway with the ability to drive on one correctly.

So you can demonstrate your proficiency to an examiner whilst actually driving on a proper 3 lane motorway.

I'm not associating ready access to a motorway with the ability to drive on one correctly.

Yes you are, since you're making it mandatory to practically demonstrate the ability to do so. Actually, a further thought occurs, what about people who live near an m/way, but not a 3-lane or better?

Perhaps one or both of you would like to try and explain why you associate ready access to a motorway with the ability to drive on one whilst using the lanes correctly?

The driving test should include motorway. If you have no access to a motorway then you can't take the test and shouldn't be allowed on the motorway. If you want to drive on the motorway, take the test, it's down to the individual.

It's not pretty, and it may not be fair to some but as solutions go it would solve more problems that it would create for the vast mojority of people who do have access.

Problem is with these debates is we tend to think with too much self insight. If we consider the bigger picture rather than our own circumstances then it makes much more sense.

So you can demonstrate your proficiency to an examiner whilst actually driving on a proper 3 lane motorway.

Surely most of the priniciples which would govern safe and correct car usage on a three-lane motorway would also govern safe and correct car usage on a two-lane dual carriageway? Only difference is you have an extra lane...

Rob.

Courtesy cars aren't always new, nor are BOB stickers always fixed to the inside of the car.

Lack of observation is one thing, misjudging the biting point of a car is totally another. When learning to drive they teach you how to control a car safely *when you stall*...because it happens, and the important thing isn't to never stall, it's to not cause an accident when it happens.

Rob.

This wasn't a courtesy car. She was in a right mess. She shouldn't have been there.

This wasn't a courtesy car. She was in a right mess. She shouldn't have been there.

Ah well, you were there, you're probably right.

Rob.

Surely most of the priniciples which would govern safe and correct car usage on a three-lane motorway would also govern safe and correct car usage on a two-lane dual carriageway? Only difference is you have an extra lane...

Rob.

I think it's much different, in fact the problem on the motorways is most people think in terms of two lanes + one for slow vehicles which is why you get everyone jammed in the middle lane.

You get people who passed their tests at different time all thinking different things are right. In their reality they are right but globally most are wrong because what they learnt to pass their test has changed and they are not aware of it.

Retest every 5 years with motorway and it should solve the problem

Ah well, you were there, you're probably right.

Rob.

I appreciate I sound like a right *** about it but it was just so bad to watch!

Yes you are, since you're making it mandatory to practically demonstrate the ability to do so. Actually, a further thought occurs, what about people who live near an m/way, but not a 3-lane or better?

I'm not associating ability and proximity. I'm happy to accept that someone could be trained to drive correctly on a motorway without even being in a car. The ability can be learnt/developed elsewhere. I am associating demonstrating that ability with actually driving on a motorway.

Do you think another testing method would be better? Talk it through with an examiner? Computer simulation? Examiner assessment based upon your dual carriage way performance?

Also, I've been quite specific, it needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes as that is my arbitrary choice. Like saying they sould be 5year re-tests, not 2 or 10 years.

Surely most of the priniciples which would govern safe and correct car usage on a three-lane motorway would also govern safe and correct car usage on a two-lane dual carriageway? Only difference is you have an extra lane...

Rob.

Technically, you're probably right but be honest, is that what you see on the highways and by-ways of this fine nation?

And driving on a 3 lane motorway is the simplest way to demonstrate competence.

You get people who passed their tests at different time all thinking different things are right. In their reality they are right but globally most are wrong because what they learnt to pass their test has changed and they are not aware of it.

A lot hasn't though...looking at some of the annoyances people suffer on motorways:

1. tailgating - following the car in front too closely has never been acceptable.

2. speeding/dawdling - incorrect use of speed (too much/too little) has never been acceptable.

3. MLMs - using the left hand lane unless overtaking has been the case ever since two-lane+ roads were created (AFAIK).

People may be thrown by latest developments in being allowed to drive on the hard shoulder, etc. but the fundamentals of driving safely on a multi-laned road haven't really changed...

Rob.

Dai, the OP that started this neatly demonstrates that driving on 3-lane m/way does not show competence in a lot of cases, but simply shows ignorance of the HC.

That said, I'd consider the fault to lie with the Police, the same as the fault with the vast number of lighting faults in incompetently mis-used lighting systems does.

A lot hasn't though...looking at some of the annoyances people suffer on motorways:

People may be thrown by latest developments in being allowed to drive on the hard shoulder, etc. but the fundamentals of driving safely on a multi-laned road haven't really changed...

Rob.

:iagree: in full

Technically, you're probably right but be honest, is that what you see on the highways and by-ways of this fine nation?

Would suspect that most of that is down to driver attitude rather than lack of knowledge though...the problems persist beyond motorways onto roads which people do learn on...

And driving on a 3 lane motorway is the simplest way to demonstrate competence.

But if the driver attitude hasn't changed, they're going to drive at 70, leave suitable stopping distances, always sit in the correct lane and not use their mobile phone...while under observation. Once nuisance test has been passed, they'll go back to sitting in lane 3, hooked onto the back bumper of the car in front and chatting away on their phone...

Rob.

Would suspect that most of that is down to driver attitude rather than lack of knowledge though...the problems persist beyond motorways onto roads which people do learn on...

But if the driver attitude hasn't changed, they're going to drive at 70, leave suitable stopping distances, always sit in the correct lane and not use their mobile phone...while under observation. Once nuisance test has been passed, they'll go back to sitting in lane 3, hooked onto the back bumper of the car in front and chatting away on their phone...

Rob.

So nothing should be done because it won't work?

So nothing should be done because it won't work?

Something which won't work shouldn't be done, no. Testing proves that someone has the capacity to do something (which is why retests are done for the old/medically infirm), but it doesn't do anything to improve commitment to this capacity outside of test conditions...

Rob.

So nothing should be done because it won't work?

"Something must be done. This is Something, therefore we must do it." clearly makes much more sense.

I'm sure it would be possible to use cameras to monitor traffic density, and automatically ticket everyone in L2 on a stretch if the L2 density was more than, say, 3 times (as the number I first thought of; if you can offer a sound reason why it's wrong and another number would be better go ahead) that in L1.

Something which won't work shouldn't be done, no. Testing proves that someone has the capacity to do something (which is why retests are done for the old/medically infirm), but it doesn't do anything to improve commitment to this capacity outside of test conditions...

Rob.

Someone doesn't pass the test, they are no longer on the road.

Peoples attitudes won't change unless they have to and this could be at least the first step to that.

Someone doesn't pass the test, they are no longer on the road.

I understand that, but being capable of doing something isn't the same as being @rsed to do it all the time...which is the main fundamental flaw with retests.

Peoples attitudes won't change unless they have to and this could be at least the first step to that.

But then, the learner driver test is supposed to be there to prove that someone has the basic competency to control a car safely - yet the highest road fatality rate is in those aged 18-25 years. Typically they're the people who have just passed their test and have "freshly-learnt" skills...yet they're not driving to the basic safety competance levels they were taught/examined upon when they're having accidents...

Rob.

Someone doesn't pass the test, they are no longer on the road.

Peoples attitudes won't change unless they have to and this could be at least the first step to that.

Or just result in criminalising or alienating a lot more previously law abiding and supporting adults.

I understand that, but being capable of doing something isn't the same as being @rsed to do it all the time...which is the main fundamental flaw with retests.

But then, the learner driver test is supposed to be there to prove that someone has the basic competency to control a car safely - yet the highest road fatality rate is in those aged 18-25 years. Typically they're the people who have just passed their test and have "freshly-learnt" skills...yet they're not driving to the basic safety competance levels they were taught/examined upon when they're having accidents...

Rob.

We could all go round in circles with this for some time