Driving Test II
Posted by: Steve Toy on 22 October 2004
Having completed Matthewr's
Driving Test
I'd like you to include following information with your scores:
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
4) The number of insurance claims you've had
5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)
6) Your score from Matthewr's test
In order that your responses aren't tedious for others to follow I suggest copying and pasting from 1 to 6 before adding your responses.
Here are mine:
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
60,000
2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
16
3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
550,000
4) The number of insurance claims you've had
0
5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to the collision (before any braking/swerving etc attempting to avoid the collision)
0
6) Your score from Matthewr's test
26/12 (I'm being truthful now)
Taking into account accident rates per driver per 100,000 miles driven, I believe that those who scored highly on Matthew's test will prove not to have a higher accident rate than those with low scores.
This question in particular I found was definitely loaded:
"Decreasing the speed limit on motorways is a good idea"
Why was it not worded
"Increasing the speed limit on motorways is a very bad idea?"
The only drivers I can imagine who would actually welcome a reduction in motorway speed limits are those who rarely venture onto what are our safest roads because they are petrified to do so. They must also be a very small minority who almost certainly don't cover high mileages at all.
IME car drivers who don't at least drive to the speed limits on motorways are very rare.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sat 23 October 2004 at 5:58.]
Driving Test
I'd like you to include following information with your scores:
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
4) The number of insurance claims you've had
5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to impact (before any braking/swerving etc was attempted to avoid the collision)
6) Your score from Matthewr's test
In order that your responses aren't tedious for others to follow I suggest copying and pasting from 1 to 6 before adding your responses.
Here are mine:
1) Your approximate annual mileage over the last three years
60,000
2) The number of years you have held a full Driving Licence
16
3) Your estimated approximate total mileage since you first passed your test
550,000
4) The number of insurance claims you've had
0
5) The number of accidents you've had where your speed was greater than the posted limit immediately prior to the collision (before any braking/swerving etc attempting to avoid the collision)
0
6) Your score from Matthewr's test
26/12 (I'm being truthful now)
Taking into account accident rates per driver per 100,000 miles driven, I believe that those who scored highly on Matthew's test will prove not to have a higher accident rate than those with low scores.
This question in particular I found was definitely loaded:
"Decreasing the speed limit on motorways is a good idea"
Why was it not worded
"Increasing the speed limit on motorways is a very bad idea?"
The only drivers I can imagine who would actually welcome a reduction in motorway speed limits are those who rarely venture onto what are our safest roads because they are petrified to do so. They must also be a very small minority who almost certainly don't cover high mileages at all.
IME car drivers who don't at least drive to the speed limits on motorways are very rare.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sat 23 October 2004 at 5:58.]
Also, the bloody government is proposing a extension of the M6 Toll from J11 to Manchester that will be only 2 lanes in each direction.
Hello lorries upon it holding up the traffic at 56.001 mph as they overtake another lorry at 56.0001 mph.
If they were so concerned about rural land space being use up (that they weren't concerned about back in 1997 when they stated that an area of land equalling the surface area of Hampshire was to be set aside for the building of houses) they would realise that by widening the existing M6 by two lanes from the existing 3 to 5 in each direction would be just an enlargement of just that and no more.
However, they prefer instead to propose a completely separate 2-lane motorway to run alongside the existing M6 that will be 2 lanes in each direction + 2 hard shoulders + a central reservation, and that's the equivalent of another three lanes in road space, not to mention the additional NIMBY objections that wouldn't happen so much if the existing M6 was simply widened by 2 lanes in each direction.
The M1 should also be widend by at least one lane each way throughout its entire length.
If the government introduced an extra £60 levy per annum (in the form of a motorway symbol sticker on the windscreen) to gain access to the motorway network as they do in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic, I'd have no objection, providing all the revenue from this was spent on maintaining and upgrading our motorway network.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Tue 26 October 2004 at 2:19.]
Hello lorries upon it holding up the traffic at 56.001 mph as they overtake another lorry at 56.0001 mph.
If they were so concerned about rural land space being use up (that they weren't concerned about back in 1997 when they stated that an area of land equalling the surface area of Hampshire was to be set aside for the building of houses) they would realise that by widening the existing M6 by two lanes from the existing 3 to 5 in each direction would be just an enlargement of just that and no more.
However, they prefer instead to propose a completely separate 2-lane motorway to run alongside the existing M6 that will be 2 lanes in each direction + 2 hard shoulders + a central reservation, and that's the equivalent of another three lanes in road space, not to mention the additional NIMBY objections that wouldn't happen so much if the existing M6 was simply widened by 2 lanes in each direction.
The M1 should also be widend by at least one lane each way throughout its entire length.
If the government introduced an extra £60 levy per annum (in the form of a motorway symbol sticker on the windscreen) to gain access to the motorway network as they do in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic, I'd have no objection, providing all the revenue from this was spent on maintaining and upgrading our motorway network.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Tue 26 October 2004 at 2:19.]