"Concerning" road safety picture as motorists unsure of Highway Code changes to protect pedestrians and cyclists; Is a mid-ride wee actually littering?; Close pass advert turns into whataboutery; Moto madness at pro race + more on the live blog

Would it though?  Seems that having e.g. speed limits which don't apply to bikes and recently clarified guidance saying that it's perfectly fine for cyclists to ride side-by-side hasn't stopped complaints there?  Nor has having a tax long called VED regularly explained in the meeja stopped complaints about "they don't pay road tax".

I'm equivocal on the actual policy in question - evidence seems to show it's not hurting cyclists.  However I can see a generation of conflict with pedestrians.

If you really want to make cycling less likely to generate comment and conflict, more appealing AND safer you want this arrangement at traffic lights.

You couldn't miss the unofficial promoting of this he updates.  The taboids and various broadsheets were going out of their way in whipping their readership into a frenzy of indignation to the misinformation they were printing. 

Banned for nine years and ten months? Since when would someone with an eye condition "so severe he would struggle to see the steering wheel" pass a medical exam to be fit to drive?

Licence should never be returned on medical grounds.

It says in the article that

Quote:

‘It has been a long and complicated investigation that required detailed analysis of the eyesight records of Mr Jones by an expert optometrist with over 40 years’ experience in the field. He concluded Mr Jones’ vision was well below the standard required for driving a vehicle and he was informed of this on several occasions by opticians and his GP.

‘He chose to ignore this and continued to drive despite the expert optometrist concluding that his vision without any correction would have been so poor that he would not have managed to see the steering wheel of his vehicle clearly.

Unfortunately, as has been covered on here many times before, the opticians and GP can tell him he shouldn't drive until they are blue in the face, but it is still up to him to voluntarily surrender his 'right to drive' 

(well, until he kills someone, obviously…).

I see bans from driving as a punishment. We have a licensing authority to decide if a driver should ever get behind the wheel again. The truth is that the DVLA are negligent in their duty. When did we ever here about fines for the failure to advise them of medical conditions that actually get used in mitigation. There are so many conditions that should be reported and aren't. In this case it's clear that he should have surrendered his license but in many cases you should just disclose your condition and then the DVLA should monitor that condition by consulting your doctor. It just doesn't seem to happen that way.

I wish bans from driving were not seen as a punishment!  Making this more "administrative" might help make this less "drama" - although this relies on a level of enforcement and ultimately public unacceptability of driving while unlicenced / uninsured which doesn't currently exist in the UK...

So it should be "we've assessed that you cannot carry out this activity safely so you are no longer licenced to do so."  In some cases that would go continue as "You've done something so egregious it seems clear you will never be cut out for this level of responsibility - any applications to do so will be declined".  (I also think you should always have to pass some kind of re-test / have a probation period.  Perhaps that could be tailored to the level of incompetence / disrespect you have on record rather than just "add 30 minutes" or whatever we have now?)

Haven't I already done that?
I can't quite remember....

Couldn't agree more.  The amount of times I've nearly been rear ended whilst driving, exiting roundabouts and giving way to pedestrians crossing.  I'll admit as much as I want to adhere to it whilst cycling I find the same situation too dangerous...I do try to apologise to the pedestrians.

Also as a pedestrian, usually with kids in tow, I certainly aren't going to put ourselves at risk by expecting motorists to give way to us crossing, again as much as I want to.

I can't understand why there hasn't been some national campaign emphasising the need to expect pedestrians to be crossing on roundabout exits/when turning into juctions etc.. because it is the high majority  that don't acknowledge it, as well as the usual ones who really don't care.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

It's getting to the point where safe and responsible drivers are viewed as a hazard to other motorists because everyone expects other drivers to break the law. That does not bode well for all other vulnerable road users and the safety advocacy groups that support them.

Indeed - perhaps yet more guidance required on how to safely drive to the conditions when those include "large numbers not driving carefully and expecting you not to either". (The practical advice to cyclists remains the same of course - "It's your funeral - just don't expect others to be looking out for you. Beware a few looking to teach you a lesson.")

Even motorists who stick to speed limits try to be at the speed limit for as much time as possible, even if it is safer (and probably necessary) to go slower.

I had this discussion with a colleague when delivering some heavy equipment in a van - we were on a 40mph road and there was a sharp bend we had to take at about 20mph at most. His response was "Why have a 40 speed limit when you can't safely do that speed on this corner?"

My response was as follows:

1. It would be stupid and costly and unneccessary to reduce the speed limit for a 50 metre stretch of road only to return back to the higher speed limit immediately after.

2. The speed limit is only a maximum indicated safe speed overall. In perfect conditions you will be able to safely travel along most of the road at that designated speed, however it is a driver's responsibility to reduce speeds when either visibility or stopping potential is reduced, or when hazards are present, be it temporary (i.e. higher traffic volumes, parked cars, pedestrians in the road etc) or permanent fixtures (lane narrowings, road furniture, sharp bends etc).

With his logic, why do racing drivers adjust their speed on bends/turns etc?
Why don't they just drive with their foot down all the time?

The difference between Scarelectrix and TCR.

I don't even understand why anyone is being surveyed to ask if they believe the new rules make pedestrians safer. Surely looking at the statistics is the way to answer the question.

We don't survey motorists to ask if they think airbags, crumple zones, or anti-lock brakes make drivers safer.

Little does he know that the chances of him getting caught are slim and the punishments are a joke. I'm sure his mates will let him know. 

My neighbour's son is 17, but they can't afford driving lessons.  So they go out at 10 pm instead, when it's less likely they will have an "accident"...

It's maddening. It's been just under 10 years since I passed my test, and I remember vividly looking at insurance.

For a 9 year old 1 litre hatchback (bought for £4000, was RRP £12,999 when new) I had quotes ranging from £1,500 to £3000 for black box quotes from young driver specialists, but then I scrolled down to the bottom on the comparison website.

A luxury car insurance specialist, instead of refusing to offer a quote, had a figure of £15,000. Yes, FIFTEEN. Ten times my cheapest quote and more than the value of the car brand new. The brand new version of the same car was only £14k.

The fact that base premiums have doubled in ten years is shocking. But the fact that the infrastructure and lifestyle forces everyone into this rabbit hole is even worse.

Active travel schemes and public transport should be good enough that this should not be seen as necessary, it would stop insurers fleecing everyone as we would all sell off our cars and cancel our our policies if they weren't being fair.

That's not how insurance works.

Have a little think about the amount of damage you can do to others.

I'm not comparing my current quote with new drivers. I know that premium rates vary on a risk levied basis, hence I am paying little over a third of my first premium on a bigger and more expensive car (albeit not by a huge amount) having made no claims against insurers nor have I any penalty points on my licence.

As a new driver my first premium for my first car was £1500.

New drivers in 2024 face premiums at £3000 minimum.

That is a 100% increase in premium costs.

In 2015 a 9 year old small hatchback (1 litre 50hp) with low milage was between £4000 and £6000 (make model and condition dependent)

Now, in 2024, the price is around £6000 to £8000. That is a 50% increase in the cost of a vehicle.

Fuel has gone up 40 to 50% in that time, as has most other running costs.

So (rhetorically) why the fuck has insurance inflation increased at double the rate of vehicle value and running costs?

Anecdotally, I got my first premium quote through a comparison website. I looked at the most expensive quote out of curiosity. The £15k quote was an insurance company that are aimed at owners of Aston Martins, Bentleys, Lambourghinis etc.  I am clearly not their demographic so there was no point in even having the offer in the first place, yet there was still an offer on the comparison site.

But a car-centric infrasturcture that is present in the UK means that you are effectively bullied into using a car as a requirement to function in society, meaning that you are effectively forced into the bottomless money pit associated with motoring. I agree with car insurance being compulsory but because they know that people rely on their cars, both combined means that underwriters have no incentive to enter price wars, and inflate prices at rates as big as they can get away with.

If there was a good quality comprehensive system of public transport and active travel infrastructure, many people (probably including myself) would forego car ownership as it is unneccesary. It would be cheaper to hire a car for the 2 weeks worth of times where it may be unavoidable than own it. Then insurers would be incentivised to price more fairly because they are no longer in demand. There would still be a sliding scale of risk cost but they wouldn't rip people off to the brink of choosing lawlessness.