Proposed new laws for drivers.

[Bletchleyite]

Driving too slowly like that would already be covered by the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving. But it requires police to be able to enforce it.

And so we go round to the vast majority of issues here. Reducing the drink-drive limit is all very well, but I've been driving to and from pubs for years (always ensuring I would be a long way under the limit on the way home) and I have NEVER been stopped for that reason (and only once in nearly 30 years of driving for another reason). Thus, while the consequences of being caught are high, the likelihood is very low. For people to take this kind of thing seriously, it needs to be a basic expectation that you'll be stopped reasonably often, say at least once a year, and breathalysed, particularly if driving at the sort of time of day when people coming from pubs having consumed alcohol is likely.

Thus would I be out of place saying that the majority of issues with road traffic law aren't that it needs changing (though I'd struggle to really object to these changes), but that policing is utterly inadequate? I don't think I would.

It's just the same as people talk about trains where you almost never get your ticket checked as "free trains". It needs to be often enough to be a deterrent. If it's not, the law could say what it liked but it will be irrelevant to how people act.

 

[Topological]

And so we go round to the vast majority of issues here. Reducing the drink-drive limit is all very well, but I've been driving to and from pubs for years (always ensuring I would be a long way under the limit on the way home) and I have NEVER been stopped for that reason (and only once in nearly 30 years of driving for another reason). Thus, while the consequences of being caught are high, the likelihood is very low. For people to take this kind of thing seriously, it needs to be a basic expectation that you'll be stopped reasonably often, say at least once a year, and breathalysed, particularly if driving at the sort of time of day when people coming from pubs having consumed alcohol is likely.

Thus would I be out of place saying that the majority of issues with road traffic law aren't that it needs changing (though I'd struggle to really object to these changes), but that policing is utterly inadequate? I don't think I would.

It's just the same as people talk about trains where you almost never get your ticket checked as "free trains". It needs to be often enough to be a deterrent. If it's not, the law could say what it liked but it will be irrelevant to how people act.

It is tempting to say target pub car parks, but I get the feeling there is as much drink-driving following consumption at home.

Certainly drug driving is not so easily focused on particular venues.

I just do not know where the resource comes from to do so many random tests, especially where most people will be perfectly ok at a 0 bound.

 

[bramling]

And so we go round to the vast majority of issues here. Reducing the drink-drive limit is all very well, but I've been driving to and from pubs for years (always ensuring I would be a long way under the limit on the way home) and I have NEVER been stopped for that reason (and only once in nearly 30 years of driving for another reason). Thus, while the consequences of being caught are high, the likelihood is very low. For people to take this kind of thing seriously, it needs to be a basic expectation that you'll be stopped reasonably often, say at least once a year, and breathalysed, particularly if driving at the sort of time of day when people coming from pubs having consumed alcohol is likely.

Thus would I be out of place saying that the majority of issues with road traffic law aren't that it needs changing (though I'd struggle to really object to these changes), but that policing is utterly inadequate? I don't think I would.

It's just the same as people talk about trains where you almost never get your ticket checked as "free trains". It needs to be often enough to be a deterrent. If it's not, the law could say what it liked but it will be irrelevant to how people act.

This is where extremely stiff penalties come in. Make it so people know that *if* they do get caught the penalty is going to be very severe. Drink driving isn’t an accident, it’s a conscious decision, there’s zero excuse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is tempting to say target pub car parks

It would make a lot of sense. Educational targets might also be of benefit, i.e. waiting in the car park and offering people a chance to be breathalysed before attempting to drive, and thus not committing any offence if over, but obviously being educated on what would put them over (what they just had) and being offered the option to reconsider, which only a fool wouldn't take.

Obviously anyone who didn't take this up would be breathalysed compulsorily and charged as appropriate if over.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

This is where extremely stiff penalties come in. Make it so people know that *if* they do get caught the penalty is going to be very severe. Drink driving isn’t an accident, it’s a conscious decision, there’s zero excuse.

Penalties, even severe ones, are basically irrelevant if you are pretty sure you aren't going to get caught. Checks need to be frequent enough for the combination of things - I genuinely might get caught AND I would if caught get punished very severely (e.g. 12 months in prison, no exceptions, or a permanent lifetime ban again with no exceptions or appeals) would be needed.

I think to create that feeling every driver who drove to a pub would need to get pulled at least every couple of years, to be honest. I might be tempting fate* but if I haven't been breathalysed ever in 30+ years of driving, that deterrent isn't very strong at all.

* A minor delay; I would be well under the limit.

 

[AM9]

Driving too slowly like that would already be covered by the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving. But it requires police to be able to enforce it.

And it requires a driver to actually drive at a speed that is unjustified. For example driving at 28mph on a quiet road between built-up areas with a 30mph restriction is not an issue at any time of day, irrespective of any following driver's wish to go faster*.
* excepting those driving genuine emergency vehicles showing the appropriate warning lights of course!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it requires a driver to actually drive at a speed that is unjustified. For example driving at 28mph on a quiet road between built-up areas with a 30mph restriction is not an issue at any time of day, irrespective of any following driver's wish to go faster*.
* excepting those driving genuine emergency vehicles showing the appropriate warning lights of course!

An advantage of moving to 50mph on single carriageways is that that is a speed most people are happy doing on that sort of road. A lot of people aren't happy doing 60, and that results in dangerous overtakes completed out of frustration.

 

[Topological]

An advantage of moving to 50mph on single carriageways is that that is a speed most people are happy doing on that sort of road. A lot of people aren't happy doing 60, and that results in dangerous overtakes completed out of frustration.

I think that would help a bit.

However, one of the most frustrating things is having a wide open road where the lanes are very wide and the road is perfectly straight, only for there to be a reduced speed limit.

Wales has some very strange situations as a result of multiple limits. Many miles of road become 40 (mostly, not 50) and then the immediate turn off into a narrow road becomes national speed limit (60). That would at least end under any proposal to have a uniform 50 on single carriageways. However, I still think Wales would find a way to have 40s on the main road and 50s on the narrow turn-offs.

My favourite use of speed limits is this one from the A4107, where there are many 40s. Here the road switches to national speed limit and immediately goes into a sharp left that really only works at 30-40. Link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bDzNnHzn8n1Zf7a89

I will confess that on the 60 sections, I am often the annoying 40-50 person.

It would be worth adding that the National Speed Limit is a limit, not the speed to drive at.

 

[Towers]

The counter argument to this is muscle memory isn't good for signalling, but not all signalling is good signalling.

If about to overtake a few parked cars ahead, but there's a T-junction 30 yards up on the right, indicating right might mislead people into thinking the signal is for turning right rather than passing the parked cars. Or indeed if people make it muscle memory to signal left 5 seconds before a roundabout where they're going left, but then there's a junction or another slip road on their left, it can be misleading.

Which is why people shouldn't use muscle memory and should make conscious decisions when driving. That way you cover both.

Having to carry out a dynamic risk assessment of everything around you - not just related to where you’re actually driving but every other potential road user in the vicinity, not all of which might be immediately apparent or visible - seems a significant and unnecessary burden on a driver. The reality of ‘overload’ is very much understood elsewhere, I simply cannot see any realistic benefit at all vs just using your indicator as a matter of course!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

An advantage of moving to 50mph on single carriageways is that that is a speed most people are happy doing on that sort of road. A lot of people aren't happy doing 60, and that results in dangerous overtakes completed out of frustration.

Those who are not “happy” to proceed at or around the permissible speed limit on a clear road in appropriate conditions can only be described as incompetent, it really is that simple.

A big part of the issue is the shocking lack of awareness that many motorists display towards anything outside of their vehicle, including the queue of irritated drivers stacked up behind them as they pootle along a 60mph limit barely exceeding 40-ish. Another problem is that, I’m utterly convinced, many drivers have zero idea what the NSL on any given road is, so they pick a speed out of thin air that feels “faster” and then sit there; it’s usually 45 - 50mph. That’s significantly less than the 60mph that a competent driver would expect to be able to comfortably achieve in good conditions, hence the impatient types who eventually decide they’ve seen enough of Mildred’s rear bumper and stick it out over the white line!

 

[AM9]

An advantage of moving to 50mph on single carriageways is that that is a speed most people are happy doing on that sort of road. A lot of people aren't happy doing 60, and that results in dangerous overtakes completed out of frustration.

I wasn't thinking of open roads between settlements e.g. the A5183 between St Albans and Redbourn, but more short sections within a 30mph area like the A1081 north through the woods between Townsend Road and the Ancient Briton lights in St Albans, where if the traffic is light, many drivers go considerably over the speed limit and sometimes harass those that comply with the limit if they can't easily overtake them. The stretch is about 500m long.
I presume that you have some knowledge of this are, but I don't know of anything like that sort of road in MK.

 

[Towers]

I will confess that on the 60 sections, I am often the annoying 40-50 person.

It would be worth adding that the National Speed Limit is a limit, not the speed to drive at.

I would have to ask, why?

Surely you can appreciate that travelling at 40mph where the limit is 60mph and other traffic has difficulty passing you is enormously inconsiderate?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Those who are not “happy” to proceed at or around the permissible speed limit on a clear road in appropriate conditions can only be described as incompetent, it really is that simple.

A big part of the issue is the shocking lack of awareness that many motorists display towards anything outside of their vehicle, including the queue of irritated drivers stacked up behind them as they pootle along a 60mph limit barely exceeding 40-ish. Another problem is that, I’m utterly convinced, many drivers have zero idea what the NSL on any given road is, so they pick a speed out of thin air that feels “faster” and then sit there; it’s usually 45 - 50mph. That’s significantly less than the 60mph that a competent driver would expect to be able to comfortably achieve in good conditions, hence the impatient types who eventually decide they’ve seen enough of Mildred’s rear bumper and stick it out over the white line!

Hear hear!

 

[styles]

Having to carry out a dynamic risk assessment of everything around you - not just related to where you’re actually driving but every other potential road user in the vicinity, not all of which might be immediately apparent or visible - seems a significant and unnecessary burden on a driver. The reality of ‘overload’ is very much understood elsewhere, I simply cannot see any realistic benefit at all vs just using your indicator as a matter of course!

If people cannot make conscious decisions about whether to indicate in their car, then I'm not convinced they should be driving on their own.

As for their surroundings, yes, similarly, they shouldn't be driving motor vehicles. 'Failing to look' is the top contributory factor in killed and serious injury collisions in the UK.

Driving a 1.5-2T vehicle which can do >100mph and accelerate to the built-up area speed limit in a second is a seriously responsibility. 1600 people are killed on our roads every year. If people can't drive safely, they shouldn't be licensed to.

 

[Towers]

If people cannot make conscious decisions about whether to indicate in their car, then I'm not convinced they should be driving on their own.

I agree, but I’d argue that decision should be based upon the maneouvre that is being made, rather than an assessment of who or what may or may not be in the vicinity!

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's say you're driving on the A9 in summer, there's no traffic in front of you and there's a long sweeping bend such as here. If someone is caught here going below 40mph and holding up traffic without using the layby, they should be punished in the same way as someone driving too fast.

I disagree. It should be those going below 50mph. Absolutely no excuse in good conditions barring a mechanical issue with the vehicle! But this is covered in the thread from a couple of months backs.

but more short sections within a 30mph area like the A1081 north through the woods between Townsend Road and the Ancient Briton lights in St Albans, where if the traffic is light, many drivers go considerably over the speed limit and sometimes harass those that comply with the limit if they can't easily overtake them. The stretch is about 500m long.

Yes I have seen some really quite reckless overtakes on that stretch. Personally I think the 30 limit should be 40 up through the woods there, albeit I understand that a short island of 40 in an otherwise 30 area is non-preferred.

 

[styles]

I agree, but I’d argue that decision should be based upon the maneouvre that is being made, rather than an assessment of who or what may or may not be in the vicinity!

I didn't say it should be based on what's in the vicinity. The examples I gave were maneuvers where, mainly due to road layout, signalling could cause confusion/be misleading, and why it should be conscious rather than muscle memory

For maneuvers where the signal wouldn't be confusing, I (consciously) indicate even if I can't (yet) see anything around me; because I don't yet know what's on the major road to know if they'd benefit. Or at least, the proportion of junctions in the UK which are so open that you can see so early on approach that there's nothing approaching just a little further away is tiny. In a large empty section of car park I might not bother though. Also the reversing light is a signal so a directional indicator would depend on the specific maneuver, possibly not needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, one of the most frustrating things is having a wide open road where the lanes are very wide and the road is perfectly straight, only for there to be a reduced speed limit.

It is of course possible to sign up on roads where a higher limit would be appropriate, e.g. the fairly wide sections of the A5 and probably also on A road duals that are pretty much motorway standards such as the A55.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

Yes I have seen some really quite reckless overtakes on that stretch. Personally I think the 30 limit should be 40 up through the woods there, albeit I understand that a short island of 40 in an otherwise 30 area is non-preferred.

Constantly varying limits are confusing and cause congestion at busy times and should definitely be avoided.

 

[Towers]

I didn't say it should be based on what's in the vicinity. The examples I gave were maneuvers where, mainly due to road layout, signalling could cause confusion/be misleading, and why it should be conscious rather than muscle memory

For maneuvers where the signal wouldn't be confusing, I (consciously) indicate even if I can't (yet) see anything around me; because I don't yet know what's on the major road to know if they'd benefit. Or at least, the proportion of junctions in the UK which are so open that you can see so early on approach that there's nothing approaching just a little further away is tiny. In a large empty section of car park I might not bother though. Also the reversing light is a signal so a directional indicator would depend on the specific maneuver, possibly not needed.

With respect, you gave two examples of a driver signalling too early. Both examples relate to a driver failing to anticipate and fully understand the road layout ahead of them, rather any benefit/disbenefit of choosing whether or not to signal at all based on what else is around. Indicating way too early for a roundabout when there is another junction before you get to it is just plain incompetent driving!

 

[Topological]

I would have to ask, why?

Surely you can appreciate that travelling at 40mph where the limit is 60mph and other traffic has difficulty passing you is enormously inconsiderate?

For example, the bend in the picture I linked is not a 60mph bend by anyone's stretch of any imagination. Hence they paint the ARAF SLOW and use the high grip road surface. Where the carriageways are narrow and there are a lot of bends you are really asking for a rally driving performance (but without the corner cutting).

That said every now and then there are some younger drivers with hot hatches that do think they can do it at 60 (and therefore are well in the wrong lane when coming round that bend). Keeping to lanes on roads like the A4107 in my link seems beyond a lot of drivers because they are determined to go at 60 rather than drive to the road.

I will leave you to imagine me going 40 along roads like the A5. I certainly do not do that.

Aside from those who refuse to do below 30 in a 20, I have not been overtaken on a single carriageway road yet.

 

[bramling]

And it requires a driver to actually drive at a speed that is unjustified. For example driving at 28mph on a quiet road between built-up areas with a 30mph restriction is not an issue at any time of day, irrespective of any following driver's wish to go faster*.
* excepting those driving genuine emergency vehicles showing the appropriate warning lights of course!

This is a lot of the problem with driving. For one, there is little consistency in how people drive, compare this to rail where train drivers are essentially taught and assessed to drive pretty much the same.

But another massive issue is for many people their selection of speed is completely off. For starters you have the ones who want to go mad round corners, motorway slip roads, roundabouts, et cetera, who are then slow once on the open road. Just last night, two going mad to get themselves on the motorway (and of course, just *have* to get straight in the right-most lane), then surprise surprise they’re both then pratting along at about 62 mph and going slower than the vehicles in the inside lanes. Then there’s the “40 everywhere” ones, who are way too slow on open roads, and way too fast (and often somewhat aggressive) in places where 40 is inappropriately fast. And something that is quite widespread, people who are *way* too fast on country lanes where the visibility is appalling and there’s barely room for two small-size cars to pass let alone anything wider, yet again I suspect a good proportion of these are the same ones who will then be slow on a road where they could easily be going faster.

As things stand, there’s no mechanism to address any of this, apart perhaps from more stringent testing. But then we get to the problem that people feel they have a god-given right to drive, even when their ability is poor. As ever, the problem with this world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst dumb people are full of confidence, and everything seems to be set up to pander to the latter.

 

[styles]

With respect, you gave two examples of a driver signalling too early. Both examples relate to a driver failing to anticipate and fully understand the road layout ahead of them, rather any benefit/disbenefit of choosing whether or not to signal at all based on what else is around. Indicating way too early for a roundabout when there is another junction before you get to it is just plain incompetent driving!

The first example is one where I would not signal at all.

That's why it should be a conscious decision, not muscle memory, which was the point I was replying to..

 

[bramling]

That's why it should be a conscious decision, not muscle memory, which was the point I was replying to..

This is getting too complex for some people, unfortunately. There’s enough of an issue on motorways with the “brake night come on, indicate right, make no attempt to speed up, immediately pull out right in front of people already in the overtaking lane” types. Would be even worse if they didn’t indicate.

 

[Topological]

This is a lot of the problem with driving. For one, there is little consistency in how people drive, compare this to rail where train drivers are essentially taught and assessed to drive pretty much the same.

But another massive issue is for many people their selection of speed is completely off. For starters you have the ones who want to go mad round corners, motorway slip roads, roundabouts, et cetera, who are then slow once on the open road. Just last night, two going mad to get themselves on the motorway (and of course, just *have* to get straight in the right-most lane), then surprise surprise they’re both then pratting along at about 62 mph and going slower than the vehicles in the inside lanes. Then there’s the “40 everywhere” ones, who are way too slow on open roads, and way too fast (and often somewhat aggressive) in places where 40 is inappropriately fast. And something that is quite widespread, people who are *way* too fast on country lanes where the visibility is appalling and there’s barely room for two small-size cars to pass let alone anything wider, yet again I suspect a good proportion of these are the same ones who will then be slow on a road where they could easily be going faster.

As things stand, there’s no mechanism to address any of this, apart perhaps from more stringent testing. But then we get to the problem that people feel they have a god-given right to drive, even when their ability is poor. As ever, the problem with this world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst dumb people are full of confidence, and everything seems to be set up to pander to the latter.

You may well be right, though I do think there are some who just have a speed they feel comfortable with.

There was an excellent one the other day who just liked 35mph. Did 35mph through the 20 villages, 35mph on the 30 stretches and 35mph on the bits where you are allowed to go 40. In that case that car got a long way ahead through the villages, but then would be slowing me down in open country.

Another good one around here are the people who ignore that the 50 for Port Talbot finishes and never really get above 55 before the third lane at Margam. (Currently roadworks mean that one a bad day you dont get to 70 until after Pyle).

 

[Towers]

The first example is one where I would not signal at all.

That's why it should be a conscious decision, not muscle memory, which was the point I was replying to..

Okay! The original point raised was, I thought, in relation to the concept that indicating should be based upon whether there is anybody around to “benefit” from it; but I think we’ve digressed somewhat!

For completeness, no need to indicate to move out passing parked cars unless there’s conflicting traffic coming towards you, always worth indicating at a roundabout - but only once you’ve reached it!

 

[Topological]

It is of course possible to sign up on roads where a higher limit would be appropriate, e.g. the fairly wide sections of the A5 and probably also on A road duals that are pretty much motorway standards such as the A55.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==



Constantly varying limits are confusing and cause congestion at busy times and should definitely be avoided.

For a great example of speed limits, see this piece of road: Approaching Nant-Y-Moel

In the google street view you begin at 40 and will see a 30 sign passing a terrace, then continuing for some distance to a 20. This is now 20 past the terrace and then goes back to 30 for the middle bit and down to 20 again.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I already have to renew my licence every three years, and get my GP to sign off on me being fit to drive each time for medical reasons (type 1 diabetes). When I last renewed after a ten year spell of not driving, I also had to undergo an additional peripheral vision test.
I've no problem in theory with these new proposed rules, but without additional funding will there be the capacity in the system for all these additional tests?

 

[bramling]

Okay! The original point raised was, I thought, in relation to the concept that indicating should be based upon whether there is anybody around to “benefit” from it; but I think we’ve digressed somewhat!

For completeness, no need to indicate to move out passing parked cars unless there’s conflicting traffic coming towards you, always worth indicating at a roundabout - but only once you’ve reached it!

I’ve always thought indicating to pass parked cars is unhelpful, as it creates confusion should you be actually intending to turn right. If you’re waiting to pass parked cars then holding the brake light on ought to be a sign that you’re not parking, though as usual some people are too ignorant and impatient to think things through.

 

[Topological]

I’ve always thought indicating to pass parked cars is unhelpful, as it creates confusion should you be actually intending to turn right. If you’re waiting to pass parked cars then holding the brake light on ought to be a sign that you’re not parking, though as usual some people are too ignorant and impatient to think things through.

Depending on the width of the road, being towards the middle is also a good indication you are not parking.

Always keep an eye out for the idiot who does treat you as if you are parking though.

Certainly cannot think why an indicator would help anyone.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there any evidence that it's only over 70s that drive with poor eyesight? This view is implicit in the legislation.

How is it implicit that those are the only people with poor eyesight?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

An advantage of moving to 50mph on single carriageways is that that is a speed most people are happy doing on that sort of road. A lot of people aren't happy doing 60, and that results in dangerous overtakes completed out of frustration.

Those overtakes will mostly still happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those overtakes will mostly still happen.

That's not what I see on main roads in places like the Peak District where they have been signed down to 50.

 

[styles]

I already have to renew my licence every three years, and get my GP to sign off on me being fit to drive each time for medical reasons (type 1 diabetes). When I last renewed after a ten year spell of not driving, I also had to undergo an additional peripheral vision test.
I've no problem in theory with these new proposed rules, but without additional funding will there be the capacity in the system for all these additional tests?

As I understand it, there isn't anywhere near the problem with booking theory/hazard perception tests as there are practical test. Logistically they're easier to scale - one test room with a dozen computers and a few invigilators, a wee reception desk and waiting area with a set of lockers in the corner is the basic requirement really.

I've quite an advocate for re-testing in certain conditions, and may even go as far as saying I don't think a periodical practical re-test is a bad idea in principle (political suicide as a policy probably though).

When I looked into it, as it would be costly, it turns out DVSA aims to (and bar COVID, generally succeeds to) cover its customer activity through fees. That is to say, the driving test fees (largely) cover the cost. Adding an additional cost to motorists having to pay for eye tests or refresher theory tests wouldn't be popular, though a theory test is £23 and if I had to do one say every 10 years, that's £2.30 a year, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of owning and running a car.