Proposed new laws for drivers.

[AM9]

I note that in today's news, there are reports of proposals to tighten laws for drivers: See here

1) Motorists over 70 could be banned from the roads if they fail compulsory eye tests under a radical shake-up of driving laws in Great Britain.​

2) Under the new plans, first reported in the Times, the drink-drive limit is expected to be tightened from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to 22 micrograms.​

I have no issues with either of the proposed changes even though I am well into the mandatory eye test age group. I note that the AA's president Edmund King, suggests that the threshold for eye tests should be 75.

There is already the usual chorus of the pub owners/landlords saying that any increased restriction would 'drastically affect country social life'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see many arguments against the proposals to be honest. However, I do think it will make very little difference to casualties, it's all a bit of a strawman to hide the real issue, which is inadequate funding of policing resulting in extremely poor driving of the kind that can't be enforced using cameras, e.g. tailgating, lane hogging, aggression etc, all of which require enforcement by a police officer.

One of the most negative thing that has ever happened to driving quality was the Police stopping doing motorway work in favour of the Traffic Officers who have no enforcement ability. We need police back out there not only cleaning up accidents but also doing people when their dangerous driving has clearly caused them or come close to doing so.

I also think we should add in a default urban 20mph, and a reduction of NSL to 50-60-70 for all vehicles, including 60 on smart motorways without a hard shoulder, unless the nearside lane is marked with a red X. I think all that would make far more difference than tweaking the drink drive limit when most people don't drink drive (the few who do tend to go way over the limit anyway).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

There is already the usual chorus of the pub owners/landlords saying that any increased restriction would 'drastically affect country social life'.

They need to get more zero-alcohol beers on tap, then, and push breweries to drop alcohol content, e.g. do we really need 5+% ciders everywhere? They are usually too bitter anyway and not very refreshing. If we're not drinking we don't all want sugary fizzy pop!

The former is key to attracting Gen-Z and Gen Alpha who don't want alcohol anyway!

 

[PeterC]

If you are going to have a mechanism to confirm eyesight then you may as well use it for all licence renewals. I have been wearing glasses since my 40s.

Of course no amount of reporting actually ensures that a driver actually wears their glasses.

With regard to drink driving (and speeding) I don't follow the argument that lowering a limit will deter people whi ignore the current limit. For drink driving I want to see the figures for accidents where non zero blood alcohol levels were below the legal threshold for prosecution.

 

[DarloRich]

sensible. next idea please.

One of the most negative thing that has ever happened to driving quality was the Police stopping doing motorway work in favour of the Traffic Officers who have no enforcement ability. We need police back out there not only cleaning up accidents but also doing people when their dangerous driving has clearly caused them or come close to doing so.

The police still do traffic work - have you not seen the chav chasers shows on TV gold plus 17?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

If you are going to have a mechanism to confirm eyesight then you may as well use it for all licence renewals. I have been wearing glasses since my 40s.

I have been wearing glasses since my 4's! Happy to have a test next time i replace my license

 

[Bletchleyite]

The police still do traffic work - have you not seen the chav chasers shows on TV gold plus 17?

They don't do enough of it or aren't there in sufficient numbers. You live in MK, you must know about the endemic cutting-up out of junctions even where there's lots of space behind that vehicle, or dangerous overtaking, or "failure to make progress" to the extent that they would fail their driving test (which comes under careless driving) plus plenty of obvious mobile phone use. Ripe for the pickings if there were enough Police, but you hardly ever see them. I doubt there's even *one* traffic car just driving around MK all day doing people for these dangerous practices, if there is I've never seen it!

See also the failure to get parking enforcement in place in central Bletchley - again, bad parking there is endemic and they would be profitable if they were there all day!

But the motorways are the real scandal. Police in the role of Traffic Officers used to pull people for stuff like tailgating and lane hogging, Traffic Officers can't. They're a weak substitute and we direly need them to be back as proper police officers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

If you are going to have a mechanism to confirm eyesight then you may as well use it for all licence renewals. I have been wearing glasses since my 40s.

As a spectacles wearer I would be more than happy to submit my prescription online each time I get a new one.

 

[DarloRich]

They don't do enough of it or aren't there in sufficient numbers. You live in MK, you must know about the endemic cutting-up out of junctions even where there's lots of space behind that vehicle, or dangerous overtaking, or "failure to make progress" to the extent that they would fail their driving test (which comes under careless driving) plus plenty of obvious mobile phone use. Ripe for the pickings if there were enough Police, but you hardly ever see them. I doubt there's even *one* traffic car just driving around MK all day doing people for these dangerous practices, if there is I've never seen it!

See also the failure to get parking enforcement in place in central Bletchley - again, bad parking there is endemic and they would be profitable if they were there all day!

But the motorways are the real scandal. Police in the role of Traffic Officers used to pull people for stuff like tailgating and lane hogging, Traffic Officers can't. They're a weak substitute and we direly need them to be back as proper police officers.

Police traffic work tends to be out on the Motorwar. Best you get in MK is them cruising up and down the A5

MK is an absolute nest of bad drivers! I think lots of it is to do with, erm, not being born in the UK ( Christ I have gone full Farage!) and driving bell piece motors

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to drink driving (and speeding) I don't follow the argument that lowering a limit will deter people whi ignore the current limit. For drink driving I want to see the figures for accidents where non zero blood alcohol levels were below the legal threshold for prosecution.

Supposedly it's changed the culture in Scotland quite effectively from "I'm definitely OK with one, I will probably get away with two" to "cars and alcohol don't mix". If the odd person gets an AlcoSense and works out that they can still have one (but wouldn't try two) the overall effect is probably still positive.

One thing I think should change is that the Police should be able to pull people for breathalysing and document checking without reasonable suspicion of an offence. The need for the latter makes random checks too difficult so they don't generally occur. It should be possible to do these "random ambushes" on roads on a Saturday evening without any obvious iffy driving to prompt them - I reckon they'd still catch loads.

Another example - I've driven all the way from MK to the North West and back without an insurance policy on the Motor Insurance Database (MID) - the policy existed but wasn't on yet - and didn't get pulled. That really isn't good enough - it means uninsured drivers get away with it all the time. It should be an expectation that if one drives more than just round the corner to the chippy without insurance that one WILL get pulled.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

MK is an absolute nest of bad drivers! I think lots of it is to do with, erm, not being born in the UK ( Christ I have gone full Farage!) and driving bell piece motors

There is certainly an argument to tighten regulations on precisely which driving licences can be imported without a new test (aside from e.g. a maximum of a month for a holiday). Though we do need to be aware that such action would be reciprocal, i.e. the countries involved would ban British licences in retaliation.

I notice a curious issue along those lines on Redways (shared pedestrian/cycle paths all over MK for those who don't know it) - people cycling who won't keep left and insist on keeping right even if you wave them over - I think it's because those people come from abroad and because they only cycle, not drive, nobody has ever told them they should be on the other side in the UK! It's particularly prevalent when cycling near to warehouses at shift change times - places where lots of people who have come to the UK quite recently work (as it's easier starter work), and with the work being poorly paid the bicycle is a popular choice to get there if one doesn't own a car.

However, enforcement would solve the problem - either those drivers would buck their ideas up, or they would lose their licences. I don't really care which. I also think (for the same reason) there should be far stricter enforcement on taxi drivers - perhaps we could start by requiring a maximum of three points on one's licence to drive for any commercial purpose (anything classing as hire/reward) rather than the usual twelve? That might help deal with the absolute worst drivers - private hire cabs and delivery drivers.

To be fair I think that's wider than just roads. Personally I think we need to be looking to at least double the number of police officers (make the criminals help fund it by increasing fines) - there is a huge issue with low level crime at the moment throughout all parts of life and it needs to be dealt with before we end up like South Africa where it has escalated to the point that walking down the street in broad daylight is usually unsafe.

 

[DarloRich]

I also think (for the same reason) there should be far stricter enforcement on taxi drivers

MK taxi drivers are appalling - several recently seemed actually unable to drive the cars they were operating ( hybrid/automatic) no pedal feel, poor car control, either on/off, speeds all over etc

 

[lachlan]

I agree with the proposals, though it would have been good to see changes to protect younger drivers (and their passengers) too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with the proposals, though it would have been good to see changes to protect younger drivers (and their passengers) too.

I don't agree with proposals to do that - it's ridiculous if a new driver can't drive their wife/husband and kids around.

If there is a problem with young drivers having accidents (and I think there is plenty of evidence that there is) then the learning and qualification process needs to be tightened rather than taking a line of "it's OK if they crash but not with a mate in the car", because that crash can just as easily take out a family in another car or even a coach full of them.

As with COVID, I also most strongly dislike the use of the term "protections" when the correct term is "restrictions". Call a spade a spade. If restrictions are needed we must talk of them as necessary restrictions, not euphemise about it. That's even worse than the trite term "safety camera" (I have no problem with speed cameras existing and generally don't speed - but I do have a very big problem with euphemising about their name).

 

[Tester]

Of course no amount of reporting actually ensures that a driver actually wears their glasses.

Interestingly Australian driving licences record if spectacle wearing is required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly Australian driving licences record if spectacle wearing is required.

So do UK ones (if you've ever told them).

 

[lachlan]

I don't agree with proposals to do that - it's ridiculous if a new driver can't drive their wife/husband and kids around.

If there is a problem with young drivers having accidents (and I think there is plenty of evidence that there is) then the learning and qualification process needs to be tightened rather than taking a line of "it's OK if they crash but not with a mate in the car", because that crash can just as easily take out a family in another car or even a coach full of them.

As with COVID, I also most strongly dislike the use of the term "protections" when the correct term is "restrictions". Call a spade a spade. If restrictions are needed we must talk of them as necessary restrictions, not euphemise about it. That's even worse than the trite term "safety camera" (I have no problem with speed cameras existing and generally don't speed - but I do have a very big problem with euphemising about their name).

I left it deliberately vague as not sure what is the best solution. Though if it is true that young people are much more likely to behave stupidly when in a car together (as opposed to on their own or with older passengers) that should be considered

 

[Tetchytyke]

One thing I think should change is that the Police should be able to pull people for breathalysing and document checking without reasonable suspicion of an offence. The need for the latter makes random checks too difficult so they don't generally occur.

As any person of colour driving a BMW will know, they occur all the time.

"I thought I smelled cannabis". "I thought your lane handling looked poor and you looked drunk".

I don't agree with proposals to do that - it's ridiculous if a new driver can't drive their wife/husband and kids around.

New drivers here in the Isle of Man have to display a red R plate on their car and they are limited to a maximum of 50mph. This is for their first 12 months post-test.

It works.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I vaguely remember a while ago in the news there was something about all new cars having to be fitted with a speed limiter - has that had any impact on anything?

I also think it ought to be much easier to report and punish drivers using their phone than it currently is - I tried to report this once and was told that I (as the person reporting) would have to attend court and give evidence. I also had a look online and there seemed to be numerous websites telling people how to get out of mobile phone while driving allegations, which seemed to be fairly easy to do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As any person of colour driving a BMW will know, they occur all the time.

"I thought I smelled cannabis". "I thought your lane handling looked poor and you looked drunk".

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

New drivers here in the Isle of Man have to display a red R plate on their car and they are limited to a maximum of 50mph. This is for their first 12 months post-test.

It works.

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.

 

[Towers]

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.

HGVs and the like doing 70 is unlikely ever to find much favour.

I disagree regarding 20mph zones; putting them everywhere simply negates their impact as everyone ignores them. They are far, far better deployed in a suitably targeted manner where they are needed, e.g. outside schools and so on. I’m familiar with a few places where they’ve been liberally applied all over the place, nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them - not unreasonably, in my personal view! They’re massive overkill on a normal urban street.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I want to see [...] the same national speed limit (50-60-70) for ALL vehicles, near eliminating single carriageway overtaking.

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.

 

[Cowley]

Well. I don’t need glasses to see that this has turned almost straight away into yet another discussion about driving standards.

Maybe keep this one on the original thread subject from here please or we’ll have to take your posting licenses away.

 

[stuu]

They need to get more zero-alcohol beers on tap, then, and push breweries to drop alcohol content, e.g. do we really need 5+% ciders everywhere? They are usually too bitter anyway and not very refreshing. If we're not drinking we don't all want sugary fizzy pop!

Decent cider is usually 6%+, anything less is mass produced rubbish. I agree with having zero alcohol on tap though

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have had eye tests annually since before I started driving. My understanding is that they're free. Does anyone know if 'mandatory eye test' means that there's a mandate to have an eye test or a specific, separate eye test is mandated? If the latter, will it be chargeable?

If the results of my test show that I am unfit to drive the optician has a legal duty to advise DVSA. Do people really not have their eyes checked?

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

I would suggest that having to pass a peripheral vision test might also improve road safety.

 

[Ediswan]

They need to get more zero-alcohol beers on tap

I believe there is a place for 0.5% beers. To me, they taste a lot better than nominally alcohol-free. Only personally come across those in bottles, but I have not looked hard.

 

[bramling]

I note that in today's news, there are reports of proposals to tighten laws for drivers:

1) over 70 year old drivers will be required to have a mandatory eye test every 3 years and will have their licence suspended/withdrawn if they fail the test​

2) the maximum alcohol level for driving will be reduced from 35mcg/100ml to 22mcg/100ml of breath.​

I have no issues with either of the proposed changes even though I am well into the mandatory eye test age group. I note that the AA's president Edmund King, suggests that the threshold for eye tests should be 75.

There is already the usual chorus of the pub owners/landlords saying that any increased restriction would 'drastically affect country social life'.

Nice to agree on something for once. I fully support this.

However, there also needs to be a stiffening up of sentences where people break the law in terms of being fit to drive. There’s no point in having a law if the sentence for breaking it is minimal.

If the thought of “I might kill someone if I have this drink” isn’t enough, then the thought of a serious punishment might just be. It’s perfectly easy to say “I’ll have a fruit juice” or whatever during a group drinking session.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have had eye tests annually since before I started driving. My understanding is that they're free. Does anyone know if 'mandatory eye test' means that there's a mandate to have an eye test or a specific, separate eye test is mandated? If the latter, will it be chargeable?

If the results of my test show that I am unfit to drive the optician has a legal duty to advise DVSA. Do people really not have their eyes checked?

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

I would suggest that having to pass a peripheral vision test might also improve road safety.

A few answers in random order:

1) eye tests are not universally free, although they are free for fairly large segments of the population, including everyone over the age of 60. So for the puposes of this new regulation, no one affected by it will have to pay.

2) yes a large number of people do not have regular eye tests, including those aged over 70.

3) AIUI it will be a routine eye test, not a specific, separate one

4) There will not be evidence that only over 70s drive with poor eyesight. However there is copious evidence that those over 70 are far more likely to have poor eyesight than the population as a whole, and not just plain old myopia or hypermetropia. Therefore mandating eye tests for those over 70 who wish to drive will address the highest risk category, and screen out a higher proportion of those with poor eyesight than if it applied to the whole population.

5) This will have a significant side benefit, in enabling many people to be diagnosed with eye health issues early, before they become a potentially untreatable or irrecoverable condition. In time this should reduce the proportion of people registered blind by age group over 70.

6) one other issue with growing old is that reaction times get slower. Having poor eyesight and slower reaction times is self evidently a higher risk than just poor eyesight, all else being equal. (I am not suggesting that young people with poor eyesight are ok to drive, just that the risk that they carry will be lower than the same standard of eyesight on an older person, on average).

7) peripheral vision tests are notoriously unreliable for false poor results. I routinely fail them, but according to my optician friends (including 2 opthalmic surgeons), and six seperate visits to opthalmic consultants, there is nothing wrong with my peripheral vision. (as my kids will testify )

This regulation is long overdue. In my view it should be aged 60 and two yearly, but then I also think everyone should visit the optician at least every two years. The horror stories I hear from my friends in the industry are just awful.

 

[AM9]

I have had eye tests annually since before I started driving. My understanding is that they're free. Does anyone know if 'mandatory eye test' means that there's a mandate to have an eye test or a specific, separate eye test is mandated? If the latter, will it be chargeable?

I've had them bi-ennially ever since my arms were getting too short to read screens & papers. More recently they (Specsavers) have given me annual tests yo track the progress of a cataract. Since passing 70 I've asked specifically whether my eyes are OK for driving, - with a positive response so far. If it was formalised, I imagine the result of that assessment would become a part of the 3 yearly licence renewal application.

If the results of my test show that I am unfit to drive the optician has a legal duty to advise DVSA. Do people really not have their eyes checked?

Clearly not, and they lie when applying for a new licence.

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

Under 70s - indeed under 50s do get ageing issues with their eyes, cataracts can develop early if the eyes are exposed to too much UV. I think the intention might be to introduce it for the oldest group of drivers where there would be the least resistance, and maybe over 60s later, - they would be able to get free tests.

I would suggest that having to pass a peripheral vision test might also improve road safety.

Peripheral vision issues might be as a result of other non-vision causes including ability to concentrate or process events simultaneously.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the thought of “I might kill someone if I have this drink” isn’t enough, then the thought of a serious punishment might just be. It’s perfectly easy to say “I’ll have a fruit juice” or whatever during a group drinking session.

The thing is (a) it's all relative, and (b) 0.05% BAC isn't zero. And it's questionable as to whether there's much difference between the two in terms of how intoxicated someone would be.

I think the argument loses respect if you suggest that someone with 0.06% BAC the day after the regulation is implemented was any more likely to kill someone than they were the day before when it was legal. Indeed I can see an argument for graduated punishments, at least to start with - let's say £100 and 3 points for being between 0.05 and 0.08, and a 12 month ban for over 0.08? After all we take the same sort of approach for speed limits, where 35 in a 30 *could* kill someone, but 70 in a 30 is rightly seen as much more serious.

What does seem to have happened in Scotland, though, is some clever messaging - "not even a pint" has been twisted such that a very large proportion of people think the limit in Scotland *is* zero even though it is nowhere near being so. In reality most adult males could probably have one pint without being over, though only just - the average (including women who tend to be smaller) is just below - but I'm not sure I would risk it and would stick to a half/shandy instead of the one pint I'd probably have now.

 

[90019]

Honestly, I'd rather they went further and required an eye test at least every two years, if not anually, for all drivers rather than just the elderly.

One thing I think should change is that the Police should be able to pull people for breathalysing and document checking without reasonable suspicion of an offence. The need for the latter makes random checks too difficult so they don't generally occur. It should be possible to do these "random ambushes" on roads on a Saturday evening without any obvious iffy driving to prompt them - I reckon they'd still catch loads.

While the police do need reasonable suspicion to breathalyse a driver, it's not a requirement for pulling over a vehicle for a document check.
Helpfully, that document check can then lead to reasonable suspicion if there's a smell of alcohol in the vehicle, for example, meaning they can then breathalyse the driver.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I vaguely remember a while ago in the news there was something about all new cars having to be fitted with a speed limiter - has that had any impact on anything?

I also think it ought to be much easier to report and punish drivers using their phone than it currently is - I tried to report this once and was told that I (as the person reporting) would have to attend court and give evidence. I also had a look online and there seemed to be numerous websites telling people how to get out of mobile phone while driving allegations, which seemed to be fairly easy to do.

Good question, I hadn't heard anything of that for a while but apparently it went live last week:

Speed limiters now required on all new cars: know the rules and how they work | Auto Express

Speed limiters are required on all new cars from July 7 2024 but what does that mean for motorists and consumers…

www.autoexpress.co.uk

You've perhaps been unlucky where you are but there's a number of areas who will accept camera evidence of mobile phone use and proceed with offering the driver an FPN or to go to court. There are also new fixed cameras that can detect mobile phone use that will hopefully be more widespread. The rules around mobile phone use were a bit lax and fallen behind the times since mobile phones were used for much more than just phones however the law was tightened up and now touching the phone at all if the phone isn't in a cradle is enough for a mobile phone conviction.

With regards to the drink drive change, I assume this is the same reduction Scotland applied a few years back? I'd be curious if there's been any noticeable change in accidents in Scotland, I did notice a change with people who instead of having one drink now won't have any as the change seemed to aim for but then none of them previously had any drink drive convictions or crashing while around the limit.

 

[Towers]

Good question, I hadn't heard anything of that for a while but apparently it went live last week:

Speed limiters now required on all new cars: know the rules and how they work | Auto Express

Speed limiters are required on all new cars from July 7 2024 but what does that mean for motorists and consumers…

www.autoexpress.co.uk

A ridiculous development and massive over-reach by the nanny state. We’ve all seen lorries ‘elephant racing’ one another for mile after mile on motorways or dual carriageways, this will extend exactly the same principal to everybody else as well. I’ve driven several new cars with the current generation of speed ‘assist’ and it’s a minor annoyance having to routinely switch it off as part of the process of starting the car etc before each journey, but when it becomes mandatory it’ll have a huge detrimental impact on any sort of pleasure or enjoyment from driving; there’s just no need for it. Plenty of tales of cars mistakenly trying to adhere to 30/40 mph speed limits on minor roads running adjacent to motorways as a result of this carp, just as there are stories of ‘lane assist’ getting itself confused where there have been white lines blacked out or rows of studs in the carriageway etc. The tech is half baked at best, and the need for it exists only in the minds of politicians with grand idealistic plans.

You do have to wonder whether some of this sort of nonsense is intended just to make the actual business of owning and driving a car sufficiently tedious that people don’t bother. On the plus side, it does help make the case for keeping older cars alive and well for the forseeable future, so some small positive at least!

 

[Topological]

A ridiculous development and massive over-reach by the nanny state. We’ve all seen lorries ‘elephant racing’ one another for mile after mile on motorways or dual carriageways, this will extend exactly the same principal to everybody else as well. I’ve driven several new cars with the current generation of speed ‘assist’ and it’s a minor annoyance having to routinely switch it off as part of the process of starting the car etc before each journey, but when it becomes mandatory it’ll have a huge detrimental impact on any sort of pleasure or enjoyment from driving; there’s just no need for it. Plenty of tales of cars mistakenly trying to adhere to 30/40 mph speed limits on minor roads running adjacent to motorways as a result of this carp, just as there are stories of ‘lane assist’ getting itself confused where there have been white lines blacked out or rows of studs in the carriageway etc. The tech is half baked at best, and the need for it exists only in the minds of politicians with grand idealistic plans.

You do have to wonder whether some of this sort of nonsense is intended just to make the actual business of owning and driving a car sufficiently tedious that people don’t bother. On the plus side, it does help make the case for keeping older cars alive and well for the forseeable future, so some small positive at least!

In my case the technology for speed assist does not cause too many issues. It flashes at 1 or 2 mph over and then keeps flashing until it finds a new speed (Wales has a "tolerance" on 20 roads so most people go a bit closer to the upper limit of the tolerance, even past speed cameras)

Lane assist is the worst one. Try joining a motorway at night when there is no traffic around. If you do not indicate then lane assist will do everything in its power to stop you joining. We currently have bridge repairs at Port Talbot that need a contraflow, the car doesnt like crossing the blackout lines there and of course in that case you cannot use the indicator to override, it is just wrestling it to go where it needs to go.

All that said on a motorway drive I do often encounter people who probably should have had lane assist on. I do not know if they are tired, or what, but...