Keep DEATH off the Roads
Posted by: Steve Toy on 05 December 2004
It's December, the month for a greater number of drink-drivers who drive slowly and erratically, ocasionally getting in my way while I ferry punters around the countryside of Mid-Staffordshire and beyond.
Whilst I will never condone drink-driving, most of those who take the risk of getting behind the wheel of a car after a few drinks tend to keep a low profile, drive to the speed limit or below, and just let you overtake them when a safe opportunity arises...
I was given a job on Saturday night to pick up an elderly couple from a hotel in a neighbouring town at 11.30 pm. Wishing to be as punctual as possible under these circumstances I put my foot down a bit on the open road - a straight stretch of road nearly a mile long across Cannock Chase with good visibility. I came upon a car travelling at less than 50mph in this 60mph zone and overtook it without incident.
My speed probably nudged the 70 mark before I came upon a second vehicle a couple of hundred yards further up the road, also travelling below 50 mph. There was still enough straight road in front of me and still nothing was coming the other way, so I attempted to overtake this vehicle - a silver R-registration Corsa with blacked-out windows and an oversized tailpipe...
As I accelerated and pulled alongside him I soon became aware that he had also started to accelerate. I quickly realised that I couldn't out-accelerate him, and I could now see the headlamps of an approaching car in the distance. I glanced at my speedometer and its reading was just above 80, so I aborted my overtaking manoeuvre and took my foot off the accelerator with the intention of pulling in behind him. I've met idiots who can't stand being overtaken before, but this particular specimen went one stage further...
Having proved that he could out-accelerate me in his hot hatch, he then attempted to prove that he could out-brake me, and he effectively pinned me in the outside lane in the face of an on-coming vehicle.
At this point I started to panic a little and just stood on my brakes. As my speed dropped to around 30mph we were still neck-and-neck with the oncoming vehicle looming ever closer.
Finally, given that the Skoda Octavia I drive is equipped with disc brakes all round, I managed to out-brake him and pull in behind, with seconds to go before impact with the oncoming vehicle. Once I was safely behind him he sped back up to just under 50 mph.
I waited a few seconds before briefly switching on my main beams in order to see his rear number plate more clearly (it was partly covered in salt from the road). He promptly switched on his rear foglamps before slowing down to 40 mph.
As we entered a 30 mph zone his speed dropped to a little over 20 mph and he began gently weaving slightly across the central white lines.
I finally lost him at the next set of traffic lights, and I was 9 minutes late picking up the elderly couple who were waiting outside in the cold. They were very sympathetic when I told them what had happened.
I want to report the incident to the police, but as there were no witnesses I guess I'd be wasting my time - and theirs.
I'm aware that in the event of surviving a head-on collision under such circumstances, I'd more-than-likely be charged with reckless driving as my version of events would be highly implausible.
I welcome your comments chaps.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: As a rule I don't overtake vehicles that are already travelling at or above the posted speed limit on single-carriageway roads.
[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Mon 06 December 2004 at 5:58.]
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by andy c
HI,
John,
re your last comment about taking the law into your own hands...
The police are under an obligation to investigate the incident. They will do so provided (in some cases) a written witness statement is provided covering the points needed. The evidence available will then be subject to a decision by either the supervisor for the cop investigating it, or the CPS.
If they do not do so, then seek a written explanation as to why not, and state you are not happy about the way it's been looked into. If this feels alien to you, don't worry about it. Please trust me in that I know exactly what I am one about here.
Re the bad driving comments after and size of vehicles...
Bad drivers cause bad driving, not the vehicles they drive (unless you get a spontaneous mechanical defect etc). In my 20+ yares of dealing with crimminal law, one area of opinion that polarises views like no other is that of the uk attitude of 'I am a brill driver, and who are you to prove otherwise?'
I speak from experience here, too.
Speed is a factor, but so is aggressive driving behaviour and risk taking.
andy c!
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by JonR
Andy C,
Out of curiousity what do you do for a living? Your post above indicates something along the lines of a solicitor specialising in criminal (as opposed to civil) law.
Like I said, just curious.
Cheers,
JR
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by andy c
Hi JR,
Won't post the reply on the forum, for personal reasons, but by all means PT me and I'll give you a clue...
andy c!
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Other than outlawing human error I can't see
any other practical way to reduce accidents other than speed limits.Are you
suggesting banning all the inattentive drivers?
given that "exceeding the speed limit" is the cause of less than 5% of
accidents and that inattention and driver error is the cause of at least 60%
of accidents, and pedestrians are responsible for at least another 10%, what
would you suggest is the best way to reduce the overall figures?
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by John C
Your given isn't a given in my estimation. Illegal and inappropriate speed contribute to a large proportion of accidents. Larger vehicles ie cars and lorries are responsible for most of the injuries or fatalities in these accidents. To minimise the effects of inattention and driver error I would introduce lower and more stringently enforced speed limits. The public highway is just that and not a playground for motorists. Drivers of larger vehicles have a duty to avoid injury to cyclists and pedestrians even when they arent responsible for the accident.
Though its almost always pointless to start bandying around statistics in these arguments and I'm sure you wont agree with the conclusions.
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/factsheets/03/index.htmHow do you propose to reduce the injuries and deaths on our roads?
John
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Geoff C
Perhaps one solution could be that everyone should retake their driving test every ten years, or maybe every five?
Regards
Geoff
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
Hi JR,
Won't post the reply on the forum, for personal reasons, but by all means PT me and I'll give you a clue...
Andy,
You have a PT!
Cheers,
JR
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Ban all cars, instantly save millions of lives through various direct and indirect routes, fitness, polution, debt, rage, EGO in charge of a dangerous weapon, etc, tec,
Durin the war *****
Of course petrol wouldn't be of interest to us, and we'd be able to pay Mr Broon more carnaby's tax, inn9it.
Wot a larf in the hoose today wasn't it ?
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Cottle:
Perhaps one solution could be that everyone should retake their driving test every ten years, or maybe every five?
Regards
Geoff
Geoff
The vast majority of people on the road have already passed a test - and then drive how they like.
Re-take every 10 years, 5 years, annually and people will pass and then drive how they like.
It's as pointless as requiring drunk drivers to take a driving test - it does not address the problem (whatever that is).
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by andy c
JR,
you have a reply.
Re the 'what would you do?' question.
A 5% reduction is an easy win if it just means people slowing down.
I'd get people to look at the implications of wehat they do on others, not just to be selfish and think of themselves all the time.
I would also random re-test motorists - very expensive and difficult to do impartially - for various other offences, other than those that carry a compulsory/disctretionary re-test now.(FWIW if you get done for due care the court can impose a driving disqualification and re-test for you. If its a drink-drive or dangerous driving offence this re-test becomes compulsory due to the obligatory disqualification they have to impose).
So, an altering of the due care offence to a compulsory six month ban + a retest?
Also, I'd do the same for the new offence of use of mobile phone, and also for any aggravating circumstances eg tailgating, shite overtaking etc.
Amazing it is how many magistrates are happy to send disqualified drivers to prison?!? perhaps its because the magistrats use cares also and actually see some crap driving?
regards,
andy c!
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Brian OReilly
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Cottle:
Perhaps one solution could be that everyone should retake their driving test every ten years, or maybe every five?
Regards
Geoff
Geoff
The vast majority of people on the road have already passed a test - and then drive how they like.
Re-take every 10 years, 5 years, annually and people will pass and then drive how they like.
It's as pointless as requiring drunk drivers to take a driving test - it does not address the problem (whatever that is).
cheers
Nigel
I agree with Nigel, but would add that even if people maintain the DoT Driving Test standard, you've still achieved very little improvement.
The advantage of a forced re-test would be that you have a captive audience who can then receive advanced driver training. Even if only half of it sinks in, it's still potentially a big improvement.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
JR,
you have a reply.
Thanks andy,
I have replied to your reply !
Cheers,
JR
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Perhaps one solution could be that everyone should retake their driving test every ten years, or maybe every five?
Mr Chavscum could retake and pass his test tomorrow, and later in the evening kill someone by deliberately forcing them into the path of an on-coming vehicle.
It is difficult to legislate for
malicious intent at the wheel of a car.
Blythe,
Good post.
I've had no advanced driver training as such, just plenty of experience and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. I learnt something from Mr Chavscum Saturday night - go out and get a more powerful car
I would, however, be interested in the advanced driving course outlined on another thread here.
No matter how good you think you already are there is always room for improvement.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Geoff C
'No matter how good you think you already are there is always room for improvement.'
Exactly.
There are a lot of older people who could learn a lot by retaking their test, it's not just the young who drive 'without due care and attention'.
Regards
Geoff
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Stewart Platts
Steve is right. My experiences of idiotic drivers has very little to do with anything they may learn from taking or re-taking a driving test.
There is one exception to this which I experience several times each week.
There are some drivers who are completely oblivious to anything that is happening in front, behind or to the side of them (this doesn't just apply to people behind the wheel of a vehicle). I frequently use one stretch of single carriageway road where the speed limit is 30 mph. This opens up into a dual carriageway but he speed limit remains at 30 mph. I stick to an indicated speed of 30 - 35 mph. Some cars are so close that it's not possible to see the the front end of the car in the rear view mirror. I do not speed up to get away from these assholes.
Just as the roads broadens into a dual carriageway there is a light controlled pedestrian crossing, with clearly marked white zig-zag lines on the approach. What tends to happen is that cars move out to pass me when they reach the dual carriageway, effectively overtaking me in the area marked by the zig-zag lines, which I believe the Highway Code says you must not do. As far as I'm aware, a driver could receive a fine and points if caught doing this.
Anyway, back to the scenario.
After overtaking me on the approach to the pedestrian crossing, cars increase their speed, presumably because they think that you can go faster (Ah, dual carriageway, great! I can do 40 mph on here). Except they don't do 40 mph. They add a bit on and end up travelling nearer 50 mph on this stretch of 30 mph limit road. This is in an area lined with shops known locally as "Busy Corner".
The fact that there are lots of pedestrians (including a high number of older people and children) and other hazards around, doesn't deter a large group of motorists from batting on at high speeds. They haven't got a clue what is going on and they may as well be wearing blinkers.
Could re-training resolve this? Who knows. Now what about catching them, fining them and endorsing their licence. Would that make a difference? Maybe.
As for the chav scum who wouldn't learn anything from re-taking a driving test. We should just shoot them.
Anyway note to South Yorkshire Constabulary.
Get yourself down to Busy Corner on the A61 Wakefield - Barnsley Road and get yer camera out! Day or night it doesn't matter. Some rich pickings are waiting you.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Geoff C
I was not trying to give a solution to Stevens problem just a general suggestion that may improve the driving skills of the general public at large.
It seems that many people fall into bad habits when driving, and a retest might just help them get back into good habits. If this reduced the number of accidents on our roads by just a few percent it would worth it.
Regards
Geoff
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by John Sheridan
quote]
Though its almost always pointless to start bandying around statistics in
these arguments and I'm sure you wont agree with the conclusions.
[/quote]
The government INCLUDES the following in its claim of 33% excessive and
inappropriate speed :
http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm:
Inattention
Failure to judge other's path or speed
Looking but not seeing
Careless and reckless behaviour
Failure to look
Lack of judgement of own path
Excessive speed
Excessive speed makes up around 10% (7.3% on link given but obviously this
varies), of which less than half is actually exceeding the speed limit.
Enforcing a speed limit is never going to stop "sorry mate, didn't see you"
accidents. In fact of the hundreds of near misses and several hits I've had
on my bicycle, every single one has involved a driver travelling well below
the speed limit - a driver who just hasn't bothered thinking or looking.
How would stricter enforcement of the speed limit stop these twats from
trying to run me down? What if stricter enforcement of speed limits causes
MORE inattention?
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by matthewr
"http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm:"
The Association of British Drivers:
-- Lies about it's membership numbers.
-- Has ties with various right wing political groups.
-- Numbers amongst its affiliates a group that was once implicated in death threats against a road safety campaigner.
Any information and views coming from their website should be viewed with caution.
Matthew
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by John Sheridan
except that the link I provided is to a list of official police accident statistics which can be verified elsewhere if you can be bothered searching.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Martin D
Matthew
I read stuff on their site (and not threatened anyone with death) I am concerned by your comments though, I wasn’t aware of your claims - I would be interested to know about the death threats, less so re the right wing claims good on them if that’s the case.
Martin
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by matthewr
Martin -- There was an article about them in the Guardian about a year ago. It's probably on their site somewhere.
Consensus seems to be that they are a small group of cranks kind of like a cross between UKIP, the Freedom Association and the AA.
Matthew
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Nime
I note the ever increasing number of speed bumbs. I consider these amongst the best (perhaps only) means of controlling excess speed around schools and shopping areas. But I wonder why they are not used more often. Is there some concern over slowing emergency vehicles or snow clearance?
Surely cost of installation and upkeep is quite low? The bumps are always carefully designed to allow cyclists to pass unhindred. But they seem to have a real effect on all other vehicles. Even if they sprint the moment they have safely passed the obstacle.
Placing a speed bump at the entrance to every town and village would at least wake up the absent minded motorist.
Nime
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Paul Ranson
Since Matthew is too lazy to back up his innuendo the Guardian article is
here.
It's a bit pathetic when 'libertarian' is used to smear a group. I assume that the anti-Iraq war protesters who were stopped from travelling to their protest and complained must be of libertarian bent and therefore support the ABD. But they probably read the Guardian! The hypocritical implications are endless.
Paul
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Paul Ranson
I make a point of driving over speed bumps at the speed limit. If I damage my car the council is liable, I maximise the irritation to locals and minimise the damage to the environment. They are a really really stupid idea.
Paul
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by matthewr
Paul -- Libertarians or not the article paints a rather poor picture of these bunch of clowns.
As for speed bumps, they are a great idea. Everyday the streets I walk and ride my bike down are quieter and the cars I do encounter are driving at noticeably lower speeds.
Matthew
