Proposed new laws for drivers.

[GusB]

I think the issue really is some people struggle with the idea of giving up driving.

This was certainly an issue after my dad had his stroke. He lost peripheral vision on his left side and was advised at the time that he mustn't drive. He was quite determined and went to the optician to have his eyes tested... It took a consultant to tell him in no uncertain terms that while his eyes appeared to be fine, the way his brain processed the signals wasn't.

He had his bus pass, applied for a disabled railcard and eventually adapted to the situation, but it was a good while before he accepted that he'd never drive again. He was lucky in that he had some public transport available, but I can completely understand that people who live in more remote places don't have the same options.

 

[AM9]

This was certainly an issue after my dad had his stroke. He lost peripheral vision on his left side and was advised at the time that he mustn't drive. He was quite determined and went to the optician to have his eyes tested... It took a consultant to tell him in no uncertain terms that while his eyes appeared to be fine, the way his brain processed the signals wasn't.

He had his bus pass, applied for a disabled railcard and eventually adapted to the situation, but it was a good while before he accepted that he'd never drive again. He was lucky in that he had some public transport available, but I can completely understand that people who live in more remote places don't have the same options.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I can sympathise with somebody who live in an area that is not well served with alternatives to driving, but there can be no leeway in the insistence of good eyesight for drivers. That is tantamount to accepting avoidable deaths and injuries to innocent people as a consequence of the convenience of others.
Here in green belt Hertfordshire, there seem to be a considerable number of retirees who want to move to a fully rural location for their forever home. Particularly cited as 'ideal' is Norfolk and Suffolk, - usually after spending one or more pleasant holidays there. I also know of some who actually made the move, (including an aunt who moved to Mundesley), where some time after had life-changing circumstances which meant the convenience of driving was lost, permanently. In my aunt's case, a trip to do shopping meant a bus ride to North Walsham or Cromer, a hospital visit almost certainly involved travelling 29 miles to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. That took over 4 hours for the return trip assuming the 3 or 4 buses connected as advertised. For those who had lived there for much of their adult life they had long-term relationships that they could fall back on, but moving to such an area without such support is rather optimistic to say the least. This law change is very important both in it removing a dangerous attitude to the safety of others, and hopefully it will retirees to seriously consider the suitability of their chosen retirement location.

 

[lachlan]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I can sympathise with somebody who live in an area that is not well served with alternatives to driving, but there can be no leeway in the insistence of good eyesight for drivers. That is tantamount to accepting avoidable deaths and injuries to innocent people as a consequence of the convenience of others.
Here in green belt Hertfordshire, there seem to be a considerable number of retirees who want to move to a fully rural location for their forever home. Particularly cited as 'ideal' is Norfolk and Suffolk, - usually after spending one or more pleasant holidays there. I also know of some who actually made the move, (including an aunt who moved to Mundesley), where some time after had life-changing circumstances which meant the convenience of driving was lost, permanently. In my aunt's case, a trip to do shopping meant a bus ride to North Walsham or Cromer, a hospital visit almost certainly involved travelling 29 miles to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. That took over 4 hours for the return trip assuming the 3 or 4 buses connected as advertised. For those who had lived there for much of their adult life they had long-term relationships that they could fall back on, but moving to such an area without such support is rather optimistic to say the least. This law change is very important both in it removing a dangerous attitude to the safety of others, and hopefully it will retirees to seriously consider the suitability of their chosen retirement location.

Additionally, the changes will hopefully help push back against the "driving is a right not a privilege" viewpoint in this country and may help raise awareness of how poor buses are. One can hope

 

[dcbwhaley]

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!

And bear in mind that signalling is useful for pedestrians as well as other motorists.
It enables the decision as to whether it is safe to cross the road, especially near a junction

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

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?

Being misdiagnosed with glaucoma in my sixties I now have to do the full eyetest including peripheral vision test every three years.
Which is a minor nuisance, especially since it involves going to Specsavers, but is reassuring.

It annoying that DVLA won't accept the word of my consultant, who I see annually, that my eyes are fine.
I will happily throw away my car keys if either the consultant or the DVLA test find problems with my vision

 

[AndrewE]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I can sympathise with somebody who live in an area that is not well served with alternatives to driving, but there can be no leeway in the insistence of good eyesight for drivers. That is tantamount to accepting avoidable deaths and injuries to innocent people as a consequence of the convenience of others.
Here in green belt Hertfordshire, there seem to be a considerable number of retirees who want to move to a fully rural location for their forever home. Particularly cited as 'ideal' is Norfolk and Suffolk, - usually after spending one or more pleasant holidays there. I also know of some who actually made the move, (including an aunt who moved to Mundesley), where some time after had life-changing circumstances which meant the convenience of driving was lost, permanently. In my aunt's case, a trip to do shopping meant a bus ride to North Walsham or Cromer, a hospital visit almost certainly involved travelling 29 miles to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. That took over 4 hours for the return trip assuming the 3 or 4 buses connected as advertised. For those who had lived there for much of their adult life they had long-term relationships that they could fall back on, but moving to such an area without such support is rather optimistic to say the least. This law change is very important both in it removing a dangerous attitude to the safety of others, and hopefully it will retirees to seriously consider the suitability of their chosen retirement location.

I am surprised that people don't understand that "a fully rural location" is just that: it is depopulated because there are no services...

Additionally, the changes will hopefully help push back against the "driving is a right not a privilege" viewpoint in this country and may help raise awareness of how poor buses are. One can hope

I agree, but there will always be parts where no bus service could be viable and we have to get used to the idea that taxis/minicabs are an essential part of "public" transport too. Hopefully the prices can be kept with the range of those who can't afford cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, but there will always be parts where no bus service could be viable and we have to get used to the idea that taxis/minicabs are an essential part of "public" transport too. Hopefully the prices can be kept with the range of those who can't afford cars.

There also needs to be an acceptance and understanding that if one loses the ability to drive and one still wants to be mobile that one must consider relocating to a less rural area unless friends and family can provide enough support.

 

[AndrewE]

There also needs to be an acceptance and understanding that if one loses the ability to drive and one still wants to be mobile that one must consider relocating to a less rural area unless friends and family can provide enough support.

agreed, that is also true.

 

[bramling]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I can sympathise with somebody who live in an area that is not well served with alternatives to driving, but there can be no leeway in the insistence of good eyesight for drivers. That is tantamount to accepting avoidable deaths and injuries to innocent people as a consequence of the convenience of others.
Here in green belt Hertfordshire, there seem to be a considerable number of retirees who want to move to a fully rural location for their forever home. Particularly cited as 'ideal' is Norfolk and Suffolk, - usually after spending one or more pleasant holidays there. I also know of some who actually made the move, (including an aunt who moved to Mundesley), where some time after had life-changing circumstances which meant the convenience of driving was lost, permanently. In my aunt's case, a trip to do shopping meant a bus ride to North Walsham or Cromer, a hospital visit almost certainly involved travelling 29 miles to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. That took over 4 hours for the return trip assuming the 3 or 4 buses connected as advertised. For those who had lived there for much of their adult life they had long-term relationships that they could fall back on, but moving to such an area without such support is rather optimistic to say the least. This law change is very important both in it removing a dangerous attitude to the safety of others, and hopefully it will retirees to seriously consider the suitability of their chosen retirement location.

I agree with this view. I sympathise that having to give up driving is not a nice thing to happen. However equally it’s pretty repulsive to continue when knowingly a liability, essentially had the good fortune to have 70 or more years life (which not everyone is lucky enough to get), yet selfishly be prepared to potentially cut life short for someone else.

Unfortunately I suspect this will become a more salient issue over the next few years, given how it affects the disproportionately arrogant baby-boom generation, whom as a group aren’t particularly good at letting go of things, and especially as they’re the generation who have been most reliant on the car. On that basis, there will probably need to be further tightening on standards over the next few years, and stiffer enforcement too, along with being prepared to ride out emotive headlines like “elderly driver imprisoned in own home after cruelly having their lifeline ripped away from them”.

 

[mpthomson]

They don't occur often enough, certainly not to people who are not of colour!



Limiting the top speed of specific drivers is dangerous; it will cause more dangerous overtaking. I cannot support this - indeed I want to see it go the other way - the same national speed limit (50-60-70) for ALL vehicles, near eliminating single carriageway overtaking.

It might work on the IoM with fewer roads where overtaking is viable, though.

Most HGVs are limited to 51-52mph for fuel consumption reasons, the actual limit for them is 56mph on a motorway. Firms aren't going to change the limiters just because the legal speed limit has risen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I agree in principle. I'm not sure that 50mph on single carriageways is enough - e.g. some parts of the A9 are single carriageway but are so wide and gently-curving that even 60mph feels excessively slow and it's difficult to stick to 60 without cruise control. You'd also get an issue that, I would guess a large majority, of people wouldn't respect the lower limit or wouldn't even be aware it had been implemented assuming the black and white "national speed limit" signs remained in place.

Thinking about buses, I'm not sure how many services could be sped up by buses being restricted to 60 instead of 50mph on single carriageways, but in general it could help make services more time-competitive with private cars.

Buses on motorways - I believe the speed limit is 70mph on paper, but legally passenger-carrying vehicles must have their limiter set to no more than 100kph which is about 62mph. When we were in the EU this was an EU rule I believe - would it be simple and safe enough to update it to have the limiter maximum as 70mph? Not that many vehicles would actually be able to achieve this, other than coaches, and I could understand if companies chose to leave the limit at 62mph for fuel economy reasons.

As above HGV speed limit on a motorway is actually 56mph but the 'sweet spot' for most is 51-53mph in terms of fuel economy, which is why most firms set their limiters at that. An increase in speed limit won't change that.

 

[Harpo]

the disproportionately arrogant baby-boom generation

In a debate on driving law, that’s a label I’d reserve for the SUV generation judging by their driving style.

 

[JamesT]

Most HGVs are limited to 51-52mph for fuel consumption reasons, the actual limit for them is 56mph on a motorway. Firms aren't going to change the limiters just because the legal speed limit has risen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==


As above HGV speed limit on a motorway is actually 56mph but the 'sweet spot' for most is 51-53mph in terms of fuel economy, which is why most firms set their limiters at that. An increase in speed limit won't change that.

The speed limit for HGVs in England and Wales is 60mph, it changed in 2015. But as you say, not worth changing the limiter for, especially if your truck is going to Scotland or the EU.

 

[bramling]

In a debate on driving law, that’s a label I’d reserve for the SUV generation judging by their driving style.

Round my way the two things tend to be one and the same. The absolute worst are the 55-65 age group typically in vehicles like Range Rovers.

 

[Harpo]

Round my way the two things tend to be one and the same. The absolute worst are the 55-65 age group typically in vehicles like Range Rovers.

Sounds like an afluent area? In my area most oldies seem to have those cheap little cars that apply the brakes every time the steering wheel is moved. SUVs seem to be a pre-requisite on the school run.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Sounds like an afluent area? In my area most oldies seem to have those cheap little cars that apply the brakes every time the steering wheel is moved. SUVs seem to be a pre-requisite on the school run.

Yes an off road vehicle is needed for the school run as it is often necessary to park on the pavement

 

[AM9]

Additionally, the changes will hopefully help push back against the "driving is a right not a privilege" viewpoint in this country and may help raise awareness of how poor buses are. One can hope

That attitude is also apparent in some posters here who seem to think that the fallout from drink driving is a price worth paying for their freedom to drive based on their own assessment of how much alcohol is reasonable.

 

[mpthomson]

The speed limit for HGVs in England and Wales is 60mph, it changed in 2015. But as you say, not worth changing the limiter for, especially if your truck is going to Scotland or the EU.

It's one of those strange limits like PCVs, the speed limit is 60 but all vehicles over 3.5t (less a few exemptions) must have a speed limiter set at max 56mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As above HGV speed limit on a motorway is actually 56mph but the 'sweet spot' for most is 51-53mph in terms of fuel economy, which is why most firms set their limiters at that.

Most firms don't set their limiters below 56mph. Almost all lorries are doing precisely that (or a bit faster downhill as the limiters don't typically brake, and that isn't illegal per se as the actual legal speed limit is higher than the limiter allows).

 

[mpthomson]

Most firms don't set their limiters below 56mph. Almost all lorries are doing precisely that (or a bit faster downhill as the limiters don't typically brake, and that isn't illegal per se as the actual legal speed limit is higher than the limiter allows).

They absolutely do... all the big distrib firms set them at 51-53mph and have done for years, as that's the sweet spot for fuel consumption for most HGVs. Some of them even have the number on a decal on the back of the trailers stating that that's what they're limited to, it's nearly always 51-53mph. Just remember that your car speedometer overreads by up to 10%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They absolutely do... all the big distrib firms set them at 51-53mph and have done for years, as that's the sweet spot for fuel consumption for most HGVs. Some of them even have the number on a decal on the back of the trailers stating that that's what they're limited to, it's nearly always 51-53mph. Just remember that your car speedometer overreads by up to 10%.

I use the GPS speedo and find that almost all lorries are doing precisely 56mph on the flat. Some are lower but the vast majority are not. In my car this is about an indicated 61-62mph (so they tend to overtake slowly if I set my limiter or cruise control to 60 on a speed restricted motorway; I usually use 21/31/41/51/62/73 to avoid this issue, which give you near enough actual 20/30/40/50/60/70).

I only frequently see those stickers on delivery vans that mostly spend their time in towns and cities. (The red-circle ones aren't about that, they're about a slightly odd requirement to display the speed limit for that vehicle in selected countries without it being banned to display what it is in others).

 

[Towers]

56 is an ideal limit for HGV drivers as it means they can steam through 50 limits in roadworks at full throttle and just avoid a ticket!

 

[daodao]

“elderly driver imprisoned in own home after cruelly having their lifeline ripped away from them”.

That is exactly how one resident in my estate of flats has probably been feeling for the last 2 months, after their neighbour lost control of the car they were driving and reversed it at high speed across the lawn, running over the resident's right foot while they were kneeling down to do some gardening, thus causing a major injury.

The police do not appear to interested in taking any action, despite 2 witnesses to the incident. It is all very well changing laws, but doing so has no practical benefit if little or no action is taken against individuals who fail to comply with them.

 

[Topological]

56 is an ideal limit for HGV drivers as it means they can steam through 50 limits in roadworks at full throttle and just avoid a ticket!

The frustration is that they do so on 2-lane 50s and are duly in the right lane when the national speed limit returns...

I dont think I would risk 56 in a 50 with average speed cameras though.

 

[Siimo]

That is exactly how one resident in my estate of flats has probably been feeling for the last 2 months, after their neighbour lost control of the car they were driving and reversed it at high speed across the lawn, running over the resident's right foot while they were kneeling down to do some gardening, thus causing a major injury.

The police do not appear to interested in taking any action, despite 2 witnesses to the incident. It is all very well changing laws, but doing so has no practical benefit if little or no action is taken against individuals who fail to comply with them.

A huge issue in declining driving standards has been the lack of enforcement and police not having time or wherewithal to take action, giving a lot of people justified confidence they won't be caught breaking a plethora of laws (if they are even aware of them to start with: how many people don't realise when pedestrians have the right of way or that using a phone whilst stationary is still illegal). This is then followed by cries of injustice on the rare occasions things are enforced because the perps have got so used to getting away with it.

 

[styles]

A huge issue in declining driving standards has been the lack of enforcement and police not having time or wherewithal to take action, giving a lot of people justified confidence they won't be caught breaking a plethora of laws (if they are even aware of them to start with: how many people don't realise when pedestrians have the right of way or that using a phone whilst stationary is still illegal). This is then followed by cries of injustice on the rare occasions things are enforced because the perps have got so used to getting away with it.

Many people don't even know that nothing in the Highway Code affords right of way

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

The frustration is that they do so on 2-lane 50s and are duly in the right lane when the national speed limit returns...

I dont think I would risk 56 in a 50 with average speed cameras though.

There is a tolerance of 10% +2mph, so in a 50 MPH limit it would be very unusual to see a prosecution for less than 57 MPH

 

[styles]

There is a tolerance of 10% +2mph, so in a 50 MPH limit it would be very unusual to see a prosecution for less than 57 MPH

That 10%+2mph enforcement threshold is only guidance from NPCC.

Not all forces use it (e.g. Police Scotland doesn't, and the Met was 10%+3mph until a few years back.), and even those who do may have a flexible enforcement policy where e.g. 10%+2mph is a threshold used for fixed position cameras, but officers are given discretion when using mobile cameras.

It's certainly not very unusual for enforcement action to be taken below 57mph. It's uncommon, but it happens all the time.

 

[Topological]

There is a tolerance of 10% +2mph, so in a 50 MPH limit it would be very unusual to see a prosecution for less than 57 MPH

Links to the other thread on technology here.

Setting the cruise at 56 would mean that there is a chance of the downhill doing 57 (motorways do not have gradients that can push 2 above before the cruise can correct it) but it is still not a risk I would take. A limiter at 56 is a bit safer for preventing 58, but still.

Also worth remembering that the 10%+2 rule is a rule of thumb and that prosecution can be made for 51mph. I doubt anyone is spending much time thinking about that though because, as you say, it is unusual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==

That 10%+2mph enforcement threshold is only guidance from NPCC.

Not all forces use it (e.g. Police Scotland doesn't, and the Met was 10%+3mph until a few years back.), and even those who do may have a flexible enforcement policy where e.g. 10%+2mph is a threshold used for fixed position cameras, but officers are given discretion when using mobile cameras.

It's certainly not very unusual for enforcement action to be taken below 57mph. It's uncommon, but it happens all the time.

Working the other way, Wales was using 26mph for 20mph limits (compared to the England equivalent 24mph boundary).

I am not 100% sure what the current position in Wales is, but do not pass any fixed cameras at more than 24 to make sure (I mean 20 obviously)

 

[styles]

Also worth remembering that the 10%+2 rule is a rule of thumb and that prosecution can be made for 51mph. I doubt anyone is spending much time thinking about that though because, as you say, it is unusual.

I do think you would fail to mount a successful prosecution for being 1mph over a limit however. The manufacturers' data sheets will include some sort of accuracy measure, and even if it's only say 1%, at 50mph, that would be 0.5mph, which would be the rounding point for 50mph-51mph.

I've never in my life seen proof of a speeding ticket for 1mph over.

I have however seen an FPN for 75mph on a 70mph/NSL section of a dual carriageway. It was raining and there were pedestrian crossing points near where she was caught. She was offered a speed awareness course though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==

Working the other way, Wales was using 26mph for 20mph limits (compared to the England equivalent 24mph boundary).

I am not 100% sure what the current position in Wales is, but do not pass any fixed cameras at more than 24 to make sure (I mean 20 obviously)

Apparently policy is 10%+4mph in 20mph areas:

GoSafe apply the NPCC guidelines which outline the enforcement thresholds of not less than 10% plus 2mph. Following the change in default limit, Chief Police Officers allowed us to increase this to 10% plus 4mph in 20mph only, meaning we start to prosecute at 26mph in a 20mph limit.

https://www.gosafe.org/campaigns-and-operations/20mph-engagement-and-enforcement/20mph-enforcement/

GoSafe is Wales' national road safety partnership - it means they should have standardised policies across all the police forces for things like speeding, when to offer speed awareness courses, etc. How strictly they follow things, is maybe another issue.

I don't mind 20mph in Wales, and I do drive there to visit my mum fairly often. A lot of online opposition for what I find is just a non-issue.

 

[Topological]

I do think you would fail to mount a successful prosecution for being 1mph over a limit however. The manufacturers' data sheets will include some sort of accuracy measure, and even if it's only say 1%, at 50mph, that would be 0.5mph, which would be the rounding point for 50mph-51mph.

I've never in my life seen proof of a speeding ticket for 1mph over.

I have however seen an FPN for 75mph on a 70mph/NSL section of a dual carriageway. She was offered a speed awareness course though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==


Apparently policy is 10%+4mph in 20mph areas:



https://www.gosafe.org/campaigns-and-operations/20mph-engagement-and-enforcement/20mph-enforcement/

GoSafe is Wales' national road safety partnership - it means they should have standardised policies across all the police forces for things like speeding, when to offer speed awareness courses, etc. How strictly they follow things, is maybe another issue.

I don't mind 20mph in Wales, and I do drive there to visit my mum fairly often. A lot of online opposition for what I find is just a non-issue.

75 on a 70 is very harsh, though is of course sufficiently far over 70 to say that you would know you were over 70.

Most of the 20s I go through would be a goldmine for cameras though. A queue soon builds behind someone doing 25.

I am curious to know what the fixed cameras on the M4 near Swindon prosecute at. I have seen 80 through that section and faster (but those faster ones tended to slow past the cameras).

 

[styles]

75 on a 70 is very harsh, though is of course sufficiently far over 70 to say that you would know you were over 70.

Most of the 20s I go through would be a goldmine for cameras though. A queue soon builds behind someone doing 25.

I am curious to know what the fixed cameras on the M4 near Swindon prosecute at. I have seen 80 through that section and faster (but those faster ones tended to slow past the cameras).

It was a dual carriageway, rather than a motorway. It was raining and there were pedestrian crossing points. I suspect (but don't know!) that she'd have been fine if it was dry.

Funnily enough, a load of speed cameras in Scotland were switched off last year as they needed maintenance and apparently driver compliance with the speed limit had improved sufficiently. I wonder if that compliance will remain high now that they have bright orange 'Not In Use' jackets over them! I went through a 50mph speed limit area the other day which has a fixed position camera at the bottom of a dip - a lot of people appeared to be doing closer to 70mph that's what I'll say!