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!
I think that would be a bad idea. My opinion is that it is safer for the driver to have to consciously set the limit rather than the car decide for itself.
I don't really see how the driver choosing the speed to be "the number the car is showing on the dashboard" is any worse than selecting a specific speed manually. When going between 20 and 30 areas I like to have the limiter on so I don't accidentally speed when the road opens up without having to check the speedo too much. A glance at the dash and one button is much easier than faffing with adjusting the limit while trying to drive in a busy city environment.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My car (25 plate X-Trail) has adaptive cruise control, and it is very easy to set cruise control* for the speed of the road. The car also advises me if the speed changes**, and gives me the option to do a single click speed change. The issue is that, if the road is busy, the adaptive control doesn't respond brilliantly and it is often more pleasant to retain control.
* - I believe the speed limiter function responds identically, but I have never got on brilliantly with them, so don't use it.
** - this isn't always reliable, for example failing to distinguish between mandatory and advisory speed limits (and before anyone tells me, I know that advisory speed limits outside schools matter. Just not on a Saturday when the school is very visibly locked closed!).
My issue with driving legislation is that prosecutions and punishments are incredibly outcome dependant. Death by careless driving- a brief moment of inattention and you don't see the cyclist when pulling out of a side street- will see you absolutely clobbered in court. But if you are fortunate enough to avoid killing or injuring someone then even outrageously dangerous driving will see you get nothing more than a slap on the wrist
I absolutely agree with this. But also I think there's too much emphasis on personal responsibility. Often the infrastructure is (at least partly) to blame and ignoring that in favour of *only* punishing the driver seems to be a recipe for avoidable deaths.
I don't really see how the driver choosing the speed to be "the number the car is showing on the dashboard" is any worse than selecting a specific speed manually. When going between 20 and 30 areas I like to have the limiter on so I don't accidentally speed when the road opens up without having to check the speedo too much. A glance at the dash and one button is much easier than faffing with adjusting the limit while trying to drive in a busy city environment.
Every car I've driven with cruise control has supported setting the speed to the current speed of the car. The only way I've ever had to set a different speed is to come out of cruise control (typically by braking) and then flick the switch to accelerate back to the previous speed setting.
I disagree, well designed roads will mitigate the dangers of poor driving. Conversely poorly designed roads absolutely can be dangerous regardless of the care taken by drivers.
My issue with driving legislation is that prosecutions and punishments are incredibly outcome dependant. Death by careless driving- a brief moment of inattention and you don't see the cyclist when pulling out of a side street- will see you absolutely clobbered in court. But if you are fortunate enough to avoid killing or injuring someone then even outrageously dangerous driving will see you get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
I've driven in many parts of the UK and one thing that is common to just about everywhere, is following too close to the vehicle in front. And yet every single driver has surely heard of the two second rule? If they haven't then their driving knowledge is at fault, and if they have heard of it but can't demonstrate what it means as part of a refresher driving test, then they should fail that test. (I'll come back to this point).
Drivers who follow too closely are at fault all of the time that they're doing it, which for some is almost all the time that they're driving. And yet you could be following at a safe distance and then have the misfortune that someone pulls of of a side road or steps off a pavement in front of you with serious consequences, and suddenly you'll be hauled over the coals far more than those who regularly drive in a more hazardous manner. So yes, I agree that punishments are too outcome dependent - I'd suggest that this is a highly inadequate and lazy form of law enforcement.
And yes, I'm suggesting that refresher tests should be mandatory, at a maximum of every ten years. Driving is a privilege of modern society, it isn't a "right", because that right is afforded to millions of drivers who are demonstrably taking on something well beyond their competence. The vast majority of all injuries on the roads are testament to this sorry fact, ie that someone has driven beyond their competence.
I could say more about this suggested repeat driving test, and of course many people would oppose it. However, I suspect that if you speak to people who have suffered loss due to someone's poor driving, then they will be rather less opposed to this idea than those who have breezed through their driving experiences and survived (to date) on luck.
I disagree, well designed roads will mitigate the dangers of poor driving. Conversely poorly designed roads absolutely can be dangerous regardless of the care taken by drivers.
I can think of one badly-designed road - it is where the M275 off Portsea Isle (Portsmouth) joins with the M27 (east). Two 70mph roads, two lanes each, merge and become one three-lane carriageway. M27's outer lane merges with M275's inner lane; but the merge is almost "blind" due to elevation and curvature of each M-way; oh and thick foliage blocking the view of each road, until the actual lane-joining.
On the flip-side, I struggle to see how behaviours I mentioned up-thread (linked) will be any different, as they occur daily on already well-designed, highly-visible roads.
In a technologically advanced country with a supposed interest in road safety, why do we have to put up with such woefully inadequate traffic enforcement systems? Rail systems are pretty good these days, especially when it comes to driver behaviour which carries heavy sanctions for breaking...
Other than as a money-making exercise for the DVSA, there would be absolutely no point. People know how to drive properly, after all they all passed their test.
Other than as a money-making exercise for the DVSA, there would be absolutely no point. People know how to drive properly, after all they all passed their test.
My daughter's just passed her test; talking as she was learning made me realise how stale my knowledge is after 30 years of driving. The issues for experienced drivers are not ability to control a car, but understanding of what good driving is.
My daughter's just passed her test; talking as she was learning made me realise how stale my knowledge is after 30 years of driving. The issues for experienced drivers are not ability to control a car, but understanding of what good driving is.
Depends what you mean by stale. Much of what you have to learn to pass the theory test is useless technical information that you don't use in the real world.
In terms of the actual driving part of the examination, any of us who have been driving for many years would be able to pass it easily. The issue isn't that people don't know how to drive to the minimum standard. The issue is that, for whatever reason, they don't always drive to that standard once there isn't a driving examiner in the seat next to them.
Other than as a money-making exercise for the DVSA, there would be absolutely no point. People know how to drive properly, after all they all passed their test.
Earlier I agreed with you, this time I certainly don't. Yes, people passed their test but so what? Over 1600 people were killed on UK roads in 2024 with 28000 seriously injured.
What part of "driving properly" would you suggest was not part of those statistics? Would you suggest that perhaps a good many of those horrendous statistics were generated by people who hadn't passed their test perhaps?
What part of "driving properly" would you suggest was not part of those statistics? Would you suggest that perhaps a good many of those horrendous statistics were generated by people who hadn't passed their test perhaps?
Anyone driving has passed their test. There is nothing to suggest that they wouldn't pass another test. Maybe you'd thin out the really really stupid people, the people thick enough to tailgate or speed on a driving exam, but there can't be many of those.
The issue is what they do once the driving examiner isn't in the seat next to them.
On that subject, and for my own curiosity, I just went and did one of the mock hazard perception tests on the DVSA website. I scored no points on one clip because I clicked the button too many times. Apparently going through a ford wasn't a hazard and apparently going over a hump-back bridge with a blind crest also wasn't a hazard, and I shouldn't have clicked the button then. I should have waited for the tractor at the end of the clip. Go figure.
Talk about teaching what can be assessed, not teaching people what will keep them safe.
Depends what you mean by stale. Much of what you have to learn to pass the theory test is useless technical information that you don't use in the real world.
In terms of the actual driving part of the examination, any of us who have been driving for many years would be able to pass it easily. The issue isn't that people don't know how to drive to the minimum standard. The issue is that, for whatever reason, they don't always drive to that standard once there isn't a driving examiner in the seat next to them.
I didn't mention the theory test, though the refresh on the Highway Code would do many of us no harm. But there are other things, even simple ones like the use of mirrors, that are easily lost - and are about more than doing what's required because the examiner's in the passenger seat.
I agree that pretty well anyone who's been driving a long time would pass based on their ability to handle a car. But with that come bad habits and complacency - hence my view that it would be a salutary experience for many.
I don't think it'll happen, though - DVSA don't have enough examiners as it is, let alone to cope with retests.
I can think of one badly-designed road - it is where the M275 off Portsea Isle (Portsmouth) joins with the M27 (east). Two 70mph roads, two lanes each, merge and become one three-lane carriageway. M27's outer lane merges with M275's inner lane; but the merge is almost "blind" due to elevation and curvature of each M-way; oh and thick foliage blocking the view of each road, until the actual lane-joining.
I can think of one badly-designed road - it is where the M275 off Portsea Isle (Portsmouth) joins with the M27 (east). Two 70mph roads, two lanes each, merge and become one three-lane carriageway. M27's outer lane merges with M275's inner lane; but the merge is almost "blind" due to elevation and curvature of each M-way; oh and thick foliage blocking the view of each road, until the actual lane-joining.
At a much “lower “ level, I can think of at least 1 zebra crossing that is positioned right opposite a very hard to spot passageway between houses. Drivers who are unaware of the passageway have only the time it takes someone to cross a standard width pavement to spot the person and react. That’s perfectly adequate if the driver is paying as much attention as they should and it’s someone walking. My heart in the mouth moment was caused by a kid on a bicycle who was presumably late for school… I was fortunately still far enough away from the crossing and there was no one behind me - but if I’d been looking at the other end of the crossing I dread to think what would have happened.
And yes, I'm suggesting that refresher tests should be mandatory, at a maximum of every ten years. Driving is a privilege of modern society, it isn't a "right", because that right is afforded to millions of drivers who are demonstrably taking on something well beyond their competence. The vast majority of all injuries on the roads are testament to this sorry fact, ie that someone has driven beyond their competence.
I could say more about this suggested repeat driving test, and of course many people would oppose it. However, I suspect that if you speak to people who have suffered loss due to someone's poor driving, then they will be rather less opposed to this idea than those who have breezed through their driving experiences and survived (to date) on luck.
As above, who do you suggest does these tests?
There is already a huge problem getting the first driving test due to the lack of examiners, and you propose to massively increase that workload. Do you not see a problem with your proposal?
My car also shows me speed limits on the dashboard. Of course the car manufacturers understandably don't have bespoke rules for the Isle of Man and so it thinks the black diagonal stripe on a white circle means 60mph. It doesn't. Here it means end of speed limit. So the sign on my dashboard is flashing for a speed limit which doesn't exist.
Yes, it's one of the main causes of multi-vehiche Road Traffic Collisions along the A3 south of Guildford. The vast majority of junctions, exiting and joining, are short and sharply-curved. I see drivers joining a 70mph flow at 20-30mph, pushing into gaps which do not exist. The junctions' "give way" signs and road lining, seemingly don't apply to them...
I suggest that a 70mph limit for dual carriageways is entirley inappropriate as they lack the safety features on motorways eg hard shoulders, phones, no slow vehicles etc
Depends what you mean by stale. Much of what you have to learn to pass the theory test is useless technical information that you don't use in the real world.
In terms of the actual driving part of the examination, any of us who have been driving for many years would be able to pass it easily. The issue isn't that people don't know how to drive to the minimum standard. The issue is that, for whatever reason, they don't always drive to that standard once there isn't a driving examiner in the seat next to them.
On the subject of driving tests, a lot of people will have had zero practical training on how to drive on motorways, and certainly won’t have been assessed on them. I know learners are allowed on motorways now, but this is a recent thing, and how much do learners actually do it in practice?
The other elephant in the room is of course people who haven’t taken a test, have been disqualified from driving but still do, and those who haven’t taken a test in this country. My suspicion is these three groups likely cause a disproportionate amount of issues.
I suggest that a 70mph limit for dual carriageways is entirley inappropriate as they lack the safety features on motorways eg hard shoulders, phones, no slow vehicles etc
Not all dual carriageways are equal, though. Nor are motorways. I've driven on some sections of road that are classed as dual carriageway and they're far better built than some motorways. One example I have in mind is the M90; while it has been a few years since I've driven it, it used to have some awful road surfaces and there was no hard shoulder. It all depends on when a particular section of road was built rather than the colour of the road signs.
On the subject of driving tests, a lot of people will have had zero practical training on how to drive on motorways, and certainly won’t have been assessed on them. I know learners are allowed on motorways now, but this is a recent thing, and how much do learners actually do it in practice?
Many people in my part of the world will rarely encounter a dual carriageway, let alone a motorway. It's totally impractical to require such people to be assessed on them before they can be granted a licence.
I learned to drive on single carriageway and single track roads. When I did eventually venture further afield, I just took my time while I got used to the unfamiliar environment.
Except that it generally does because of the way that the national speed limit works.
A hard coded interpretation based on national speed limit = x mph is inherently defective. However, as a driver, I do like having a speed displayed rather than the national speed limit sign.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On the subject of driving tests, a lot of people will have had zero practical training on how to drive on motorways, and certainly won’t have been assessed on them. I know learners are allowed on motorways now, but this is a recent thing, and how much do learners actually do it in practice?
Grantham is bypassed by the A1 (full dual carriageway) and it features on at least one of the standard driving test routes. It is a normal thing for learners to be taken on it. Joining is more challenging than most motorway junctions of my experience.
Many people in my part of the world will rarely encounter a dual carriageway, let alone a motorway. It's totally impractical to require such people to be assessed on them before they can be granted a licence.
Impractical it may be, but this is nonetheless clearly a problem given the terrible standards of driving now routinely seen on such roads. Not sure what the solution is here.
I learned to drive on single carriageway and single track roads. When I did eventually venture further afield, I just took my time while I got used to the unfamiliar environment.
One way or the other, clearly a lot of people either aren’t picking up how to drive on dual carriageway roads, or if they are being taught they aren’t for whatever reason applying it correctly in practice. How much of this is down to poor training versus poor attitude is open for conjecture.
Earlier I agreed with you, this time I certainly don't. Yes, people passed their test but so what? Over 1600 people were killed on UK roads in 2024 with 28000 seriously injured.
What part of "driving properly" would you suggest was not part of those statistics? Would you suggest that perhaps a good many of those horrendous statistics were generated by people who hadn't passed their test perhaps?
The problem isn't that people can't drive properly it is that too often they don't. Let me tell you about my driving test. I passed first time at age 19 having not expected to pass, because I was a slow driver who kept failing to "make progress". My driving test was conducted in icy conditions in a gale, and my slow driving was, coincidentally, perfectly acceptable for the conditions.
A week after I passed my test I decided to go out routinely at night when the roads were quieter to increase my confidence with car handling, and I did very well - there was nobody in the car with me to judge me or tell me to look in my mirrors. I would rag my little Fiesta at 50mph in a 30mph zone, accelerate hard through corners and try to straightline roundabouts. And, after a couple of weeks, one day I spun the car on a wet roundabout and ended up facing the wrong way, with two cars looking at me. The embarrassment was enough to change my driving forever. But it is a salutary lesson that passing a test is not an indicator of driver competence, and as @Tetchytyke says, the issue is the attitude of some people who are driving without an examiner or instructor in the car. People drive their own way - I was taught to sequence down through gears when slowing on slip roads but rapidly got into the habit of clutching in and coasting.
The solution is a cultural change in how we drive alongside proper enforcement. People should drive their cars responsibly and defensively and they should be much more aware of how accidents happen (my wife routinely drives alongside lorries in their blind spot!!). All drivers should be shown graphic footage of car accidents and pedestrian collisons. Every day you get into the car you should think "you could kill someone today if you're not careful". How we get there is a long road.
Impractical it may be, but this is nonetheless clearly a problem given the terrible standards of driving now routinely seen on such roads. Not sure what the solution is here.
One way or the other, clearly a lot of people either aren’t picking up how to drive on dual carriageway roads, or if they are being taught they aren’t for whatever reason applying it correctly in practice. How much of this is down to poor training versus poor attitude is open for conjecture.
One feature I observe, touched on in the discussion over whether an experienced driver would pass a test now, is that standards can degrade over time. One common feature of poor driving on dual carriageways, which I commonly see with behaviours like middle lane hogging, going slower than the general road speed, and cautious joining off slip roads, is that the drivers appear elderly. Knowing one or two such drivers, my instinct is that their capability has fallen but that they don't recognise the fact. Whether that is due to slowing reactions, deteriorating eyesight, or something else I don't know.
One of those I know (now in his 90s) scared the living daylights out of me when talking about driving a year or so back with his account of turning on to an A road at a country crossroads. He clearly had very poor perception of the speed of oncoming traffic, and had lost the ability to accelerate hard. The result was that he turned out right in front of a lorry, causing it to have to brake sharply and pull alongside him as he tootled on. This is an experienced driver who was once perfectly good - but the effects of age have diminished his ability more than he is willing to recognise.
The solution is a cultural change in how we drive alongside proper enforcement. People should drive their cars responsibly and defensively and they should be much more aware of how accidents happen (my wife routinely drives alongside lorries in their blind spot!!). All drivers should be shown graphic footage of car accidents and pedestrian collisons. Every day you get into the car you should think "you could kill someone today if you're not careful". How we get there is a long road.
I'd like to believe this is possible, but suspect (fear?) that the reality is that there's a lack of self-awareness in too many people - which comes through in driving as in other aspects of life. The driver I've mentioned exhibits that lack of self-awareness in many ways, but most especially in an inability to self-reflect.
Cars parked on double red lines blocking the running lane
Vans loading on the No Loading lines or inside light-controlled junctions blocking lanes
Vehicles parked in pedestrian crossings either physically blocking the crossing or blocking pedestrians' and drivers' view of the crossing
Vehicles parked on pavements blocking the pavements (Scotland so illegal)
Drivers trying to go 30/40mph+ on urban 20mph roads and getting aggressive when other cars don't do that speed
Vehicles parking in pedestrian zones
Vehicles driving through red traffic lights
Drivers on their phone while driving
If I go for a 10 minute walk through the centre of the city I live in I'll very likely see most of these happening just in those 10 minutes.
I don't know how these are solved other than increased enforcement but that costs money and nobody seems to be willing to spend it.
It doesn't mean end of speed limit in the UK. It means national speed limit. This is very different.
The national speed limit is 70mph for (some) dual carriageways and (most) motorways. It is 60mph for (some) single carriageway roads. For cars, anyway, as the NSL is lower for other types of vehicle. And the NSL is lower again for HGVs in Scotland.
My car does (usually) show 70mph when it is on a NSL dual carriageway in the UK, but only when it knows it is on a dual carriageway. It doesn't always, especially with new roads.
But this wasn't my point. My point was that my car flashes at me for breaking a speed limit which doesn't exist. The Isle of Man does not have a national speed limit. Roads which are national speed limit in the UK are completely unrestricted here. But the car's software isn't written to reflect this.
The other elephant in the room is of course people who haven’t taken a test, have been disqualified from driving but still do, and those who haven’t taken a test in this country. My suspicion is these three groups likely cause a disproportionate amount of issues.
For the last group, though, they are only allowed to drive on a foreign licence for 12 months. After that they have to get a GB licence. Unless they passed their test in the EU, or Crown Dependencies, they would have to pass both the theory and the practical test in GB.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One feature I observe, touched on in the discussion over whether an experienced driver would pass a test now, is that standards can degrade over time. One common feature of poor driving on dual carriageways, which I commonly see with behaviours like middle lane hogging, going slower than the general road speed, and cautious joining off slip roads, is that the drivers appear elderly. Knowing one or two such drivers, my instinct is that their capability has fallen but that they don't recognise the fact. Whether that is due to slowing reactions, deteriorating eyesight, or something else I don't know.
Living somewhere rural and with quite an elderly population, I'd agree that this is a real issue. It's worse in winter when, due to eyesight naturally deteriorating, people simply can't see very well on unlit roads. The number of times I've been following someone doing 30mph or less on an unlit unrestricted road only for them to speed up when they get to the street lights of the town is unreal.
I think people should at least have to have a medical letter from a doctor when they have to renew their licences after 70.
The trouble is that the sorts of conditions that affect older people's ability to drive are often the sorts of conditions that also reduce that older person's self-awareness.
That requires the doctor to be willing to say "no" - I've known too many examples of professionals refusing to upset their clients/patients by refusing to write that letter. Like the optician who refused to declare my grandmother unfit to drive despite a history of "minor bumps" and declaring spots in front of her eyes. Or the doctor with the 90+ year old who I mentioned above being willing to say "no longer fit".
So if the dual carriageway has lighting- and a lot do- the the speed limit is 30mph unless indicated otherwise. It's why streetlit trunk dual carriageways have the NSL repeater signs.
A limit of 30 miles per hour or 48 kilometres per hour usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting
www.gov.uk
So if the dual carriageway has lighting- and a lot do- the the speed limit is 30mph unless indicated otherwise. It's why streetlit trunk dual carriageways have the NSL repeater signs.
The national speed limit is certainly not consistent. In Scotland the limit for HGVs is lower than it is in England. And then we have the 20mph stuff in Wales.
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.
But yes, point taken.