Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
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!
I would like to think the purpose of cameras is to encourage better behaviour and that they could be switched out. However, it sounds like it has become a game between the enforcers and drivers who are only complying to avoid fines rather than complying because they realise the safety importance of compliance.
As with the offences mentioned in the new laws, it seems it is all about chances of being caught rather than the reason why there are laws in the first place.
I think that road sounds like a candidate for having a reduced limit. Not sure there should be 70s with crossings.
It would just be good to see the law positioning itself a bit better.
However, it sounds like it has become a game between the enforcers and drivers who are only complying to avoid fines rather than complying because they realise the safety importance of compliance.
Drivers who are sufficiently observant to avoid being caught by speed cameras may well be safer than those who blindly drive at the limit, oblivious to their surroundings.
Drivers who are sufficiently observant to avoid being caught by speed cameras may well be safer than those who blindly drive at the limit, oblivious to their surroundings.
Maybe, though they are also very frustrating when they overtake and then move back in front (as is correct based on their driving speed) only to then slow to below 70 for the camera (when slowing you need to pay attention to the road and not the speedo so would go below 70 to be sure at a glance you were not over)
Whilst I can be observant and then go round them, their breaking for the cameras does not strike me as that safe.
In that case, I know where the cameras are and know that my speed is unlikely to be an issue.
The practice is even worse in average speed 50s where trucks are doing 53/54 and then get caught in the whole breaking thing when these speeders want to get back below 50.
I don't have much sympathy for people who get multiple speeding tickets.
As mentioned most police forces have some sort of tolerance like 10%+2mph for fixed cameras, there are warning signs, the cameras are bright yellow (or yellow and red up here), and down south they offer speed awareness courses up to generally 10%+9mph over the limit.
Mobile operations can be trickier to spot but they're largely pretty obvious, plus people report them on Google Maps, Waze, etc.
To receive multiple sets of points you really have to be inattentive and speeding fairly significantly. Or in the case of average speed cameras, not knowing how averaging works.
I'm not really bothered about people doing 75mph down the M6 at night when I do that journey. But if you're doing 86mph+ to be ineligible for a speed awareness course, and you can't spot the vans parked on the bridges, you're not a very safe driver.
Also after the first set of points you'd think people would tone it down a bit until the points are nearly expired.
Except that you appear to have confirmed what I said - the wording of the second quote is only addressed to wheeled and hooved forms of transport. If all other road users are advised they 'do not have the right of way in any circumstances' and also that the passage in question omits mention of someone on foot, then in legal parlance it can be reasonably inferred that they do have right of way in some situation, otherwise they would be included in such a statement, no?
Except that you appear to have confirmed what I said - the wording of the second quote is only addressed to wheeled and hooved forms of transport. If all other road users are advised they 'do not have the right of way in any circumstances' and also that the passage in question omits mention of someone on foot, then in legal parlance it can be reasonably inferred that they do have right of way in some situation, otherwise they would be included in such a statement, no?
The quote I provided is before any of the rules. It applies to all road users.
With the exception of designated public rights of way, no road user, whether using a vehicle or not, has right of way. Even then, on PRoW, the meaning of a right of way does refer to having some sort of priority over other users.
The reason the highway code states this at the start is to set the tone that priority is given, not taken, and should be given when it will avoid a problem.
In legal precedence, no user has right of way. That's why the highway code says it.
WE have created a society in which it is almost impossible to function without driving a car.
Supermarkets are on out of town sites without public transport.
Country areas have neither shops nor public transport.
If this is what the country wants it has to accept that we allow inadequate drivers and the resultant deaths are the price we must pay to maintain that type of society
But you can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. You simply shouldn't be putting yourself in a position where it isn't possible to function without a car. What if you had a sudden seizure and were thus disqualified from driving? If you move to somewhere that means you can't survive without a car and then end up being unable to drive then that's on you.
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 hope I'm not taking this out if context because surely if driving needs anything at all it is literally constant assessments of who or what me be in the vicinity of your vehicle. If someone can't so that they need to give up their license surely?
But you can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. You simply shouldn't be putting yourself in a position where it isn't possible to function without a car. What if you had a sudden seizure and were thus disqualified from driving? If you move to somewhere that means you can't survive without a car and then end up being unable to drive then that's on you.
I hope I'm not taking this out if context because surely if driving needs anything at all it is literally constant assessments of who or what me be in the vicinity of your vehicle. If someone can't so that they need to give up their license surely?
Not necessarily, it depends on the lifestyle an individual expects to have for the rest of their life. In suburban environments, unless the reason that a person loses their licence renders them unable to walk medium distances.
Not necessarily, it depends on the lifestyle an individual expects to have for the rest of their life. In suburban environments, unless the reason that a person loses their licence [also] renders them unable to walk medium distances.
and that's where taxis/minicabs/Uber etc come in. There are loads of ways that surrendering a licence can be got round to maintain mobility.
My parents told me of an old man who used to get the bus across Bradford with a shopping trolley or sack truck loaded up with his record player and stacks of LPs for the weekly country dancing where he provided the music.
Not necessarily, it depends on the lifestyle an individual expects to have for the rest of their life. In suburban environments, unless the reason that a person loses their licence renders them unable to walk medium distances.
I live between Leeds and Bradford but it's two miles to my nearest supermarket, and that's on a bypass. Buses are radial in nature, so to go four miles north I have to go four miles into town then get another bus for another four miles. It takes 90 minutes.
As said previously without the benefit of hindsight modern life is based around the motor car, and there isn't any stopping that particular genie staying well and truly outside the bottle.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I live between Leeds and Bradford but it's two miles to my nearest supermarket, and that's on a bypass. Buses are radial in nature, so to go four miles north I have to go four miles into town then get another bus for another four miles. It takes 90 minutes.
As said previously without the benefit of hindsight modern life is based around the motor car, and there isn't any stopping that particular genie staying well and truly outside the bottle.
The last bus out of Leeds to where I live, on a pretty major route, is at 10.15pm. That's not even late enough to go to the theatre, let alone, get back home from Elland Road after a night game.
The problem is that car drivers are told (by a vocal minority, to be fair, not the silent majority) to adapt their behaviour and then await improvements to public transport (which never come) some years down the line. Try it out the other way and the effects would, no doubt, but instant and miraculous.
I live between Leeds and Bradford but it's two miles to my nearest supermarket, and that's on a bypass. Buses are radial in nature, so to go four miles north I have to go four miles into town then get another bus for another four miles. It takes 90 minutes.
As said previously without the benefit of hindsight modern life is based around the motor car, and there isn't any stopping that particular genie staying well and truly outside the bottle.
the Dutch have certainly stuffed it back in. I was impressed by the bike racks at (very) rural bus stops in the middle of nowhere there about 30 years ago.
The trouble is that people here generally are just too bone idle to invest any personal effort in getting anywhere - and also seem to think that our current profligate lifestyle is an entitlement. We have to get used to the idea that the costs to the planet of having whatever you want whenever you want - and as often as you want - just won't work.
the Dutch have certainly stuffed it back in. I was impressed by the bike racks at (very) rural bus stops in the middle of nowhere there about 30 years ago.
The trouble is that people here generally are just too bone idle to invest any personal effort in getting anywhere - and also seem to think that our current profligate lifestyle is an entitlement. We have to get used to the idea that the costs to the planet of having whatever you want whenever you want - and as often as you want - just won't work.
The Dutch comparison always makes me crease up. There is something they have that we, in West Yorkshire, don't have. Flippin big hills and Pennine weather (though this year has been a notable exception). If the positions were reversed we would have the bikes and they'd have the cars. It's not the mentality but the geography.
It's not entitlement. It's being successful, or frugal, enough to have choices. I walk a lot. I go to the gym. We do canal trails, park runs etc. The trouble is that to do the latter three we need to drive there. There's no alternative that is practical. Add school runs and the fact that families are now so often displaced (and therefore need to travel to visit or provide care) and the arrogant attitude of people saying that others are entitled is laid bare.
If you create a life around something as influential as a car then to unravel it in anything but the long term is next to impossible for many. That is the real situation regardless of what is desirable or 'planet friendly'.
On the BBC article about the over 70s driving ban for failing eye tests, someone in the comments suggested that everyone with a licence of any age should have an eye test when renewing their licence:
I can certainly see advantages in mandating this for all drivers: it avoids accusations of age discrimination, almost everyone will have an eye test within a 10 year period anyway, especially the many employees who can claim the cost off employers, so won't be a burden on them, plus if it does help with catching eye diseases, would have wider health and societal benefits. However, there must be drawbacks, and given it was a comment posted on an internet chat board, it's bound to be something that sounds too simple to be achievable.
Not necessarily, it depends on the lifestyle an individual expects to have for the rest of their life. In suburban environments, unless the reason that a person loses their licence renders them unable to walk medium distances.
That is exactly what has happened to someone in my estate of flats, when their neighbour reversed a car at high speed over their right foot, resulting in licence surrender (by them, not their neighbour) and inability to walk to the shops.
The problem is that car drivers are told (by a vocal minority, to be fair, not the silent majority) to adapt their behaviour and then await improvements to public transport (which never come) some years down the line. Try it out the other way and the effects would, no doubt, but instant and miraculous.
The law is changing as it is no longer acceptable for cars to be driven by:
a) people whose eyesight and/or various other human medical conditions mean that they do not have adequate control of their vehicle.
b) anybody who has more than a certain level of alcohol in their blood that has been decided impairs that persons ability to fully control a motor vehicle.
So what are you trying to say here? Should they be permitted to continue to drive despite them not being fit enough to control a vehicle because it might be inconvenient for their lifestyle? Should all other road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) accept an enhanced risk of injury or death so that others can drive around antisocially?
The Dutch comparison always makes me crease up. There is something they have that we, in West Yorkshire, don't have. Flippin big hills and Pennine weather (though this year has been a notable exception). If the positions were reversed we would have the bikes and they'd have the cars. It's not the mentality but the geography.
It's not entitlement. It's being successful, or frugal, enough to have choices. I walk a lot. I go to the gym. We do canal trails, park runs etc. The trouble is that to do the latter three we need to drive there. There's no alternative that is practical. Add school runs and the fact that families are now so often displaced (and therefore need to travel to visit or provide care) and the arrogant attitude of people saying that others are entitled is laid bare.
If you create a life around something as influential as a car then to unravel it in anything but the long term is next to impossible for many. That is the real situation regardless of what is desirable or 'planet friendly'.
In principle, all the above points are fully reasonable. However it’s hard to reconcile with the idea that someone can decide to drive when they know they’re physically unfit, given the potential consequences of that. Especially with older people, it’s very selfish to essentially have lived a fruitful life for potentially 70 years, yet be prepared to cut short someone
It’s not unreasonable to expect people to carry out some form of planning for their latter years, which may well mean “I need to move from this picturesque rural location to somewhere that’s going to be more practical if I can no longer drive”. As opposed to selfishly ploughing on regardless, until something happens of course.
That is exactly what has happened to someone in my estate of flats, when their neighbour reversed a car at high speed over their right foot, resulting in licence surrender (by them, not their neighbour) and inability to walk to the shops.
Of course if someone does lose the ability to drive they might need to consider relocation to somewhere with more useful public transport. In a rental culture people would do that far more readily I suppose.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Dutch comparison always makes me crease up. There is something they have that we, in West Yorkshire, don't have. Flippin big hills and Pennine weather (though this year has been a notable exception).
That is exactly what has happened to someone in my estate of flats, when their neighbour reversed a car at high speed over their right foot, resulting in licence surrender (by them, not their neighbour) and inability to walk to the shops.
That is nothing to do with the changes in the law. If it really did happen as you describe, then the victim should take action against the driver for compensation and costs of an enforced lifestyle. As @Bletchleyite suggests, a mobility adapted vehicle could be used, the additional cost being recoverable from the driver at fault.
That is nothing to do with the changes in the law. If it really did happen as you describe, then the victim should take action against the driver for compensation and costs of an enforced lifestyle. As @Bletchleyite suggests, a mobility adapted vehicle could be used, the additional cost being recoverable from the driver at fault.
The trouble with this is that compensation doesn’t really make up for what has happened.
Reminds me of complaining to my local council about hazardous tree, their response essentially being “we are insured”. I wasn’t impressed, certainly not the attitude one expects of a professional duty-holder.
The trouble with this is that compensation doesn’t really make up for what has happened.
Reminds me of complaining to my local council about hazardous tree, their response essentially being “we are insured”. I wasn’t impressed, certainly not the attitude one expects of a professional duty-holder.
It is unfortunate that insurers are reluctant to pay out but that does keep the premiums lower. It is also unfortunate in many circumstances that injured people are reluctant to press their case in court (even when the situation is clear cut) which leads to a failure of justice. I wonder in this case whether the injured party even reported the incident.
It is unfortunate that insurers are reluctant to pay out but that does keep the premiums lower. It is also unfortunate in many circumstances that injured people are reluctant to press their case in court (even when the situation is clear cut) which leads to a failure of justice. I wonder in this case whether the injured party even reported the incident.
The police attended promptly the incident that I described, but have not yet taken any action months later. It is all very well adding extra motoring laws, but there is little benefit in doing so if they are not enforced.
The police attended promptly the incident that I described, but have not yet taken any action months later. It is all very well adding extra motoring laws, but there is little benefit in doing so if they are not enforced.
For sure if the law is changed along the lines of my original post, it will be enforced. As far as the case you have raised, 'months later' might be typical for such cases but there must be closure either to drop any charges or the CPS to consider the case unlikely to succeed. Police evidence is still available if this person exercises the option of a private prosecution.
The police attended promptly the incident that I described, but have not yet taken any action months later. It is all very well adding extra motoring laws, but there is little benefit in doing so if they are not enforced.
The Police, understandably, like rules that can be measured. Much easier to enforce than anything that is open to interpretation. I'm all for tightening up rules that will weed out more stupid people but I'm not convinced that it will make any difference to my day to day life. I doubt that the rude or impatient taxi drivers I encounter are over the drink drive limit. I would expect the vast majority of their cars to be road legal in terms of insurance and MOT.
The Dutch comparison always makes me crease up. There is something they have that we, in West Yorkshire, don't have. Flippin big hills and Pennine weather (though this year has been a notable exception). If the positions were reversed we would have the bikes and they'd have the cars. It's not the mentality but the geography.
It's not entitlement. It's being successful, or frugal, enough to have choices. I walk a lot. I go to the gym. We do canal trails, park runs etc. The trouble is that to do the latter three we need to drive there. There's no alternative that is practical. Add school runs and the fact that families are now so often displaced (and therefore need to travel to visit or provide care) and the arrogant attitude of people saying that others are entitled is laid bare.
If you create a life around something as influential as a car then to unravel it in anything but the long term is next to impossible for many. That is the real situation regardless of what is desirable or 'planet friendly'.
Jeez, if I had a pound for every ignorant Brit claiming 'the Dutch don't have hills' and it's the only reason they all cycle. For a start, they do: the south of the country is similar to England. Nijmegen is built on a Roman settlement on the top of a hill and the inclines start before Arnhem. Maastracht is as hilly as London. Then there are all the bridges, underpasses, dikes and other inclines you still have to traverse, and the fact that the flat parts of the country create stinking headwinds blowing off the sea. I've cycled across the country twice plus Flanders and the Rhine and can tell you cycling across NL is not any physically easier than the UK, and you actually have to ride on the road for long stretches in rural areas. In any case ebikes remove much of the effort - there are scores of Dutch and Flemish pensioners overtaking me when I go there. The actual difference, which the carpilled types want to bury, is that the urban cycling infrastructure is excellent, gives human-powered transport safe and direct routes, is wide enough for cargo bikes (and also to be used as emergency lanes by fire and ambulance) there is an implied liability law protecting cyclists and peds, good wayfinding and plenty of secure cycle parking. We can absolutely get there, there was resistance to the implementation of this infrastructure when it was begun around 40-50 years ago similar but the political system meant that the right solution prevailed in the right way that benefitted everyone. There is no culture of 'me first because me in rattlebox' or bullying vulnerable road users for ego. Interesting I came across a stat that car ownership in the Netherlands is as high as the UK, but the Dutch simply don't use them for short journeys.
Following your logic, why aren't Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Lincolnshire, and large swathes of East Anglia dominated by cycling?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Swiss roads are carefully engineered, as one would expect, to stick within a maximum gradient even in the mountains. Cycling over the Alps takes some effort but you can be assured of the conditions before setting off. Did I mention the roads are invariably well maintained too?
The weather can be savage too. Sub zero winters with people ice skating on the frozen canals. Didn't stop dad and I from cycling or riding around on the trains. Sometimes there is freezing rain, which makes things even more interesting! Nearly ended up in a sloot a few times.
Indicate then. It is hardly any effort on your part and might be of benefit to someone you haven't seen. I've never had any truck with the thing 1990s driving instructors used to say about only indicating when you see someone who could benefit; often the person who would benefit most is the person you have NOT seen. In my book you ALWAYS indicate before a manoeuvre unless there is a specific good reason not to in that instance (e.g. it might be confusing due to the road layout).
That said I dislike lane departure assist and always turn it off after starting the engine. I particularly dislike the way it tries to make me veer into the wall on country lanes where the gap from the wall to the centreline is narrower than a car width.
As a bus driver I've spent years in a 'If I'm driving in the next 12 hours I won't touch a drop' kind of mindset. It means I'm virtually teetotal, but not completely. I'm happy to have zero alcohol beers though. They have improved immensely in recent years. It does mean that even I do get a beer I can enjoy it a bit more.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Jeez, if I had a pound for every ignorant Brit claiming 'the Dutch don't have hills' and it's the only reason they all cycle. For a start, they do: the south of the country is similar to England. Nijmegen is built on a Roman settlement on the top of a hill and the inclines start before Arnhem. Maastracht is as hilly as London. Then there are all the bridges, underpasses, dikes and other inclines you still have to traverse, and the fact that the flat parts of the country create stinking headwinds blowing off the sea. I've cycled across the country twice plus Flanders and the Rhine and can tell you cycling across NL is not any physically easier than the UK, and you actually have to ride on the road for long stretches in rural areas. In any case ebikes remove much of the effort - there are scores of Dutch and Flemish pensioners overtaking me when I go there. The actual difference, which the carpilled types want to bury, is that the urban cycling infrastructure is excellent, gives human-powered transport safe and direct routes, is wide enough for cargo bikes (and also to be used as emergency lanes by fire and ambulance) there is an implied liability law protecting cyclists and peds, good wayfinding and plenty of secure cycle parking. We can absolutely get there, there was resistance to the implementation of this infrastructure when it was begun around 40-50 years ago similar but the political system meant that the right solution prevailed in the right way that benefitted everyone. There is no culture of 'me first because me in rattlebox' or bullying vulnerable road users for ego. Interesting I came across a stat that car ownership in the Netherlands is as high as the UK, but the Dutch simply don't use them for short journeys.
Following your logic, why aren't Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Lincolnshire, and large swathes of East Anglia dominated by cycling?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Swiss roads are carefully engineered, as one would expect, to stick within a maximum gradient even in the mountains. Cycling over the Alps takes some effort but you can be assured of the conditions before setting off. Did I mention the roads are invariably well maintained too?
But you can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. You simply shouldn't be putting yourself in a position where it isn't possible to function without a car. What if you had a sudden seizure and were thus disqualified from driving? If you move to somewhere that means you can't survive without a car and then end up being unable to drive then that's on you.
How about moving to an area where there is a bus service, then the local authority withdraws the subsidy, so the company stops running the buses?. Just happened to the residents of Damerham, near Fordingbridge Hants.
I am referring to former Damory 49.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council has held a Bus Subsidies Consultation. The council is claiming it cannot afford to subsidise certain routes, which will lead to a reduction or withdrawal of services.
Residents in Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) are being asked to give their opinions on the council's subsidised bus services.
Most bus routes across BCP run without extra financial help from the council. However, some routes with fewer passengers, such as evening and Sunday services or those that serve areas away from the busy roads, need financial support to keep running. This is known as bus subsidies.
The council supports 24 local bus service contracts, including six school services. Last year, the council spent £1.54 million to keep these bus services running. £834,000 of this came from the council's budget, and the rest was from government funding. Many of these contracts are due for renewal by April 2027 which may result in price increases which would need to be funded.
Residents of Talbot Heath have expressed their concerns
CONCERNS have been raised that a 'lifeline' bus service could be withdrawn if subsidies are cut.
Residents of Talbot village are expressing their worries over the potential cut of bus route 36 by BCP council and bus operator Morebus.
The Morebus 36 bus in Bournemouth travels between Talbot View Estate and Kinson, serving areas including Bournemouth University, Wallisdown, and Turbary Park Avenue.
Nick Thorp, 67, member secretary of Talbot Village Residents Association, has said the residents rely on the bus service to visit GP surgery, Bournemouth town centre and many other areas.
My original post in this thread was to discuss views on the two main changes proposed for drivers' legal eligibility to drive. It seems as though much of the more recent posts are highlighting the difficulties for those who live in areas poorly served by public transport.
Irrespective of the difficulties that there may be for those in such a position, I can't believe that posters here are seriously suggesting that this inconvenience trumps the overarching absolute need for all drivers are fit to drive on public roads. Maybe some could make their views clearer in this aspect.
How about moving to an area where there is a bus service, then the local authority withdraws the subsidy, so the company stops running the buses?. Just happened to the residents of Damerham, near Fordingbridge Hants.
I am referring to former Damory 49.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council has held a Bus Subsidies Consultation. The council is claiming it cannot afford to subsidise certain routes, which will lead to a reduction or withdrawal of services.
Of course that sucks, but that still doesn't defend allowing people to continue driving when they are literally unsafe doing so or have been told not to due to medical issues, which is the point I'm making. Driving is something that can be taken away from you very quickly for very good reasons in circumstances that aren't actually that rare.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
