Proposed new laws for drivers.

[Towers]

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

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

Certainly cannot think why an indicator would help anyone.

Try it in a bus - an indicator becomes essential! A significant chunk of motorists appear to consider that a bus which has come to a stand must be at a bus stop, even if it is very obviously in the middle of the road and standing in a queue of traffic.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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

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

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

Sight tests aren't carried out at DVSA Test Centres though, they're carried out by Opticians.
If these new tests for older drivers include the peripheral vision test that I was put through, not all Opticians have the equipment and not all staff know how to operate it anyway. I initially booked the test at Specsavers in Batley only to turn up and find there were no staff members who knew how to work the machine for that test- so I had to rebook elsewhere (Specsavers in Dewsbury).

The DVSA had sent out a list of opticians which could do the test, it was quite fortunate that (in theory if not in practice) there were two so close to my home- as the next nearest place listed was Wetherby!

 

[Topological]

Try it in a bus - an indicator becomes essential! A significant chunk of motorists appear to consider that a bus which has come to a stand must be at a bus stop, even if it is very obviously in the middle of the road and standing in a queue of traffic.

Different attitudes I guess

Through the narrow mining villages, I am quite happy if a bus goes first. It stops the impatient ones coming the other way who think that if we all breathe in we can get the parked car and 2 moving cars within the road. Certainly, no one thinks that they can squeeze through with a bus.

Others are just hoping that the bus is at a bus stop and not ready to set off so they can save 20 seconds before encountering said car that wants to squeeze through.

 

[Towers]

Different attitudes I guess

Through the narrow mining villages, I am quite happy if a bus goes first. It stops the impatient ones coming the other way who think that if we all breathe in we can get the parked car and 2 moving cars within the road. Certainly, no one thinks that they can squeeze through with a bus.

Others are just hoping that the bus is at a bus stop and not ready to set off so they can save 20 seconds before encountering said car that wants to squeeze through.

Understandable to a degree if you’re in the world of the 20mph zone, buses are probably more likely to adhere to it than most!

 

[trainmania100]

Id rather they did more to stop speeding, like more speed watches and fines. Does operation crackdown etc actually take any action if you submit a dash cam clip of someone overtaking you at speed despite you doing the speed limit? Petty I know but it encourages the drivers behind you to also overtake & makes you look like a granny driver

 

[styles]

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

Yes.

A DfT report in 2019 looking into recorded contributory factors in road traffic collisions found that 77% of the time 'Uncorrected, defective eyesight (CF504)' was recorded, it was for drivers over the age of 60. The raw data including for more recent years is a public data set: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-accidents-safety-data. Of course, this isn't perfect methodology. It could be that the police are more likely to test eyesight or quiz drivers about their eyesight if they're an older driver for example.

There is also evidence that older people are more likely to have failing to look properly, failed to judge path or speed, driver illness/disability, dazzling sun than younger drivers in kills and serious injuries, which unlike the raw data is neatly presented in a summary table here: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...sheet-2023#factors-contributing-to-collisions. While they don't necessarily relate solely to eyesight, I think it's pretty likely that a decent whack of the difference relates to poor eyesight. The factors more likely to be reaction times etc would be covered by something like a hazard perception test.

I think the issue really is some people struggle with the idea of giving up driving. And to be fair to them, it is often a much more convenient way to get around, especially if you're doing more local journeys as I expect a lot of over-70s are.

At the other end of the spectrum is younger drivers who are over-represented in KSI stats for other reasons - loss of control, speeding, speed not suitable to conditions, and being inexperienced.

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

Id rather they did more to stop speeding, like more speed watches and fines. Does operation crackdown etc actually take any action if you submit a dash cam clip of someone overtaking you at speed despite you doing the speed limit? Petty I know but it encourages the drivers behind you to also overtake & makes you look like a granny driver

It has to be reasonably excessive. To prosecute for a speeding offence requires measurements from Home Office approved devices, which dashcams are not. But speeding, or even travelling at a speed below the limit but above the speed it would be safe to travel given the conditions, can amount to careless driving, or in extreme cases dangerous driving.

Passing somebody who is doing 70mph on the motorway, while doing 80-85mph yourself, is unlikely to result in any action for example. Over 100mph? It's a real possibility:

https://highways-news.com/dashcam-footage-leads-to-conviction-of-two-speeding-drivers/

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2024-04-17/man-who-drove-at-100mph-sentenced-for-dangerous-driving-and-child-neglect

 

[bramling]

Id rather they did more to stop speeding, like more speed watches and fines. Does operation crackdown etc actually take any action if you submit a dash cam clip of someone overtaking you at speed despite you doing the speed limit? Petty I know but it encourages the drivers behind you to also overtake & makes you look like a granny driver

I don’t find speeding to be my biggest risk on the roads. Round here the biggest problems are simply incompetent driving, or sometimes dumb levels of impatience (can’t wait a few seconds, not realising there’s a hazard). Whilst there’s a fair amount of inappropriate speed in urban areas especially, a lot of that is actually within the speed limit. I’d say what needs to happen is a focus *away* from speed, and onto other offences, and a particular focus on people driving whilst knowing distracted (mobile phones in particular).

Judging by what I see on the M25, the handful of those who drive at massively excess speed presumably are driving with false plates, as otherwise they’d be being picked up by multiple cameras.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t find speeding to be my biggest risk on the roads. Round here the biggest problems are simply incompetent driving, or sometimes dumb levels of impatience (can’t wait a few seconds, not realising there’s a hazard). Whilst there’s a fair amount of inappropriate speed in urban areas especially, a lot of that is actually within the speed limit. I’d say what needs to happen is a focus *away* from speed, and onto other offences, and a particular focus on people driving whilst knowing distracted (mobile phones in particular).

Judging by what I see on the M25, the handful of those who drive at massively excess speed presumably are driving with false plates, as otherwise they’d be being picked up by multiple cameras.

It strikes me that the M40 and M6 Toll are the only places where seriously excessive speeding (rather than 75-80 in a 70 type stuff) still occurs in significant numbers. The rollout of smart motorways is making the prevailing speed pretty much anywhere else near enough 70, while in other places a combination of congestion and lane hogging prevents going an awful lot quicker. People doing 90-100 everywhere is mostly a thing of the past.

 

[Topological]

It strikes me that the M40 and M6 Toll are the only places where seriously excessive speeding (rather than 75-80 in a 70 type stuff) still occurs in significant numbers. The rollout of smart motorways is making the prevailing speed pretty much anywhere else near enough 70, while in other places a combination of congestion and lane hogging prevents going an awful lot quicker. People doing 90-100 everywhere is mostly a thing of the past.

That may be true near London, but not here. The only smart motorways are a short stretch near Bristol between the M5 and the M32 junctions of the M4, and then the M5 has some smart motorway towards the M42. Otherwise it is only the average speed cameras of Newport and Port Talbot.

You know when it is holiday season though, suddenly you find yourself getting moved in the traffic past 80 and have to consciously drop out of the general flow. At other times the left lane is full of lorries and slower drivers doing 60 so it feels odd being over there at 70 on a busy road. Of course, when I commute at 5am its left lane almost all the way (with some early lorries to overtake). This is the only time of year I regularly note 90+ on the M4.

 

[Bald Rick]

It strikes me that the M40 and M6 Toll are the only places where seriously excessive speeding (rather than 75-80 in a 70 type stuff) still occurs in significant numbers.

M6 north of Preston too.

 

[Towers]

It strikes me that the M40 and M6 Toll are the only places where seriously excessive speeding (rather than 75-80 in a 70 type stuff) still occurs in significant numbers. The rollout of smart motorways is making the prevailing speed pretty much anywhere else near enough 70, while in other places a combination of congestion and lane hogging prevents going an awful lot quicker. People doing 90-100 everywhere is mostly a thing of the past.

I’d suggest that there’s a huge distinction in compliance between sections of road where average speed cameras are present and those which just have ‘traditional’ cameras of one sort or another, which is still the case on a lot of smart m-ways. It isn’t difficult for an attentive driver to observe when they’re approaching a camera and ease off accordingly, and in my experience it remains pretty normal for lanes 3/4 to flow at 80ish or above with a little slowing passing camera sites. I’ve no doubt that eventually the powers that be will just bite the bullet and start a mass rollout of average cams, but thankfully we aren’t there yet!

 

[RyanOPlasty]

I don’t find speeding to be my biggest risk on the roads. Round here the biggest problems are simply incompetent driving, or sometimes dumb levels of impatience (can’t wait a few seconds, not realising there’s a hazard). Whilst there’s a fair amount of inappropriate speed in urban areas especially, a lot of that is actually within the speed limit. I’d say what needs to happen is a focus *away* from speed, and onto other offences, and a particular focus on people driving whilst knowing distracted (mobile phones in particular).

Judging by what I see on the M25, the handful of those who drive at massively excess speed presumably are driving with false plates, as otherwise they’d be being picked up by multiple cameras.

Absolutely. There is too much ( and in some forces it seems only ) focus on speed. This is because it is easy and cheap to measure.

Road deaths were following a declining path until about 10 years ago but have now levelled out despite huge improvements in active and passive safety in recent cars. It should be obvious to everyone who drives that driving standards have plummeted now that there are very few dedicated traffic officers.

This can only be solved by more police presence on our roads. If road policing were centrally funded and ring-fenced, then it wouldn't be chipped away by regional forces. Perhaps even make it a division of BTP, as it is clearly related to transport.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes.

A DfT report in 2019 looking into recorded contributory factors in road traffic collisions found that 77% of the time 'Uncorrected, defective eyesight (CF504)' was recorded, it was for drivers over the age of 60. The raw data including for more recent years is a public data set: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-accidents-safety-data. Of course, this isn't perfect methodology. It could be that the police are more likely to test eyesight or quiz drivers about their eyesight if they're an older driver for example.

There is also evidence that older people are more likely to have failing to look properly, failed to judge path or speed, driver illness/disability, dazzling sun than younger drivers in kills and serious injuries, which unlike the raw data is neatly presented in a summary table here: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...sheet-2023#factors-contributing-to-collisions. While they don't necessarily relate solely to eyesight, I think it's pretty likely that a decent whack of the difference relates to poor eyesight. The factors more likely to be reaction times etc would be covered by something like a hazard perception test.

which is why I don't think these proposals go anywhere near far enough. I am into my '70s now and am really annoyed by the number of older drivers who just can't judge road conditions (like how to get onto a roundabout when there are any other cars on it.) I have long wanted a simplified "fitness to contuinue driving" road test. It would be cheaper to administer than the costs to all the rest of us of the accidents caused by selfish incompetents who won't give up.

I think the issue really is some people struggle with the idea of giving up driving. And to be fair to them, it is often a much more convenient way to get around, especially if you're doing more local journeys as I expect a lot of over-70s are.

They just can't see that in most cases a succession of minicabs is cheaper than taxing and insuring a car.

At the other end of the spectrum is younger drivers who are over-represented in KSI stats for other reasons - loss of control, speeding, speed not suitable to conditions, and being inexperienced.

I am disgusted that this has been completely ignored in the proposals. It just reinforces the impression that politicians are self-seeking slimeballs who haven't got any spine. Lots of countries have sensible measures to address the problem.

 

[Merle Haggard]

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.

Thanks for the response.
I'll just point out that, in my case (anecdotal I know) my long vision deteriorated in my teen years at the same time as I had a spurt in height growth (shortest in class to amongst the tallest) without any change to girth. My optician at the time explained that if the eye does not grow uniformly in all planes then needing glasses would be the result. As it happens my eyesight over the many successive years has remained stable but I put this down to wearing glasses though I have no scientific basis for this assumptiion.

My interest in peripheral vision is that poor pv might explain the apparent inability of some lorry and bus drivers to see an obstruction above their line of sight, resulting in, amongst others, a railway bridge bash.

snip


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

Presumably inability; in my opinion being able to concentrate and process different events simultaneously are basic requirements for being licenced to drive...

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

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

Because that group is the only one being proposed. for testing.

 

[The exile]

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

Not necessarily- it may be only clear that it is too early to those who know the road. I experience the flip side frequently - right turn onto a main road where gaps are rare. Quite a lot of drivers approaching from the right are actually intending to turn left into the side road - of these I would say 70% do not signal (if at all) until it is too late to pull out because of the car behind them. I still hold that signalling as “muscle memory” and making conscious decisions not to is better for traffic in general than only signalling following a conscious decision.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because that group is the only one being proposed. for testing.

That doesn't mean they're the only people who can have poor eyesight. They are the group with the most elevated risk by some distance when it comes to poor eyesight. Pardon the pun but I don't see the issue.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It strikes me that the M40 and M6 Toll are the only places where seriously excessive speeding (rather than 75-80 in a 70 type stuff) still occurs in significant numbers. The rollout of smart motorways is making the prevailing speed pretty much anywhere else near enough 70, while in other places a combination of congestion and lane hogging prevents going an awful lot quicker. People doing 90-100 everywhere is mostly a thing of the past.

the M45 was once a safe bet. Straddling the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire county border and with no roundabouts to return West easily (you had to go down to Watford Gap and through the barriers) meant that the respective County police forces avoided it - too much time out of their respective areas.
Then, camera vans on over bridges were invented...

Judging by what I see on the M25, the handful of those who drive at massively excess speed presumably are driving with false plates, as otherwise they’d be being picked up by multiple cameras.

There may be a snag to this. Last Sunday, when I was filling up, an unusually large limousine drew up alongside me. The well dressed but similarly large and slightly threatening driver tried, unsuccessfully, to fill up, but then drove off. I was interested in the make and model of car, and took the reg.
A quick check on the DVSA website showed that the reg was for a Vauxhall Astra with long-expired tax & MOT.
Perhaps that was why he was unable to fill up - the station reg check failed. Wouldn't this be a problem with false plates?
Another clue; the front reg was vinyl stuck on not, exactly level. Rather let down the image.

 

[Bald Rick]

the M45 was once a safe bet. Straddling the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire county border and with no roundabouts to return West easily (you had to go down to Watford Gap and through the barriers) meant that the respective County police forces avoided it - too much time out of their respective areas.
Then, camera vans on over bridges were invented...

Never ever seen a police car on the M45. I was once ovetaken there by a brand new Aston, with a reg that implied it belonged to the company, and let’s just say he disappeared rapidly into the distance.

 

[bramling]

the M45 was once a safe bet. Straddling the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire county border and with no roundabouts to return West easily (you had to go down to Watford Gap and through the barriers) meant that the respective County police forces avoided it - too much time out of their respective areas.
Then, camera vans on over bridges were invented...




There may be a snag to this. Last Sunday, when I was filling up, an unusually large limousine drew up alongside me. The well dressed but similarly large and slightly threatening driver tried, unsuccessfully, to fill up, but then drove off. I was interested in the make and model of car, and took the reg.
A quick check on the DVSA website showed that the reg was for a Vauxhall Astra with long-expired tax & MOT.
Perhaps that was why he was unable to fill up - the station reg check failed. Wouldn't this be a problem with false plates?
Another clue; the front reg was vinyl stuck on not, exactly level. Rather let down the image.

If it isn’t false plates, how are they getting away with it? Clearly they are in some way, as you can’t just drive round the M25 at 100 mph without cameras flashing.

Surely it isn’t just a simple case of “no name, no address, no identify”?

Every time I drive back from Henley to Hertfordshire I can guarantee there will be a handful of such cars.

 

[Towers]

If it isn’t false plates, how are they getting away with it? Clearly they are in some way, as you can’t just drive round the M25 at 100 mph without cameras flashing.

Surely it isn’t just a simple case of “no name, no address, no identify”?

Every time I drive back from Henley to Hertfordshire I can guarantee there will be a handful of such cars.

It isn’t uncommon for iffy types to simply provide a false address when re-registering a vehicle, or indeed a real address which doesn’t belong to them of course. Not especially wise somewhere like the M25 as you’ll surely ping an ANPR camera pretty sharpish, but they are out there! I agree though that cloned plates are probably more likely.

 

[bramling]

It isn’t uncommon for iffy types to simply provide a false address when re-registering a vehicle, or indeed a real address which doesn’t belong to them of course. Not especially wise somewhere like the M25 as you’ll surely ping an ANPR camera pretty sharpish, but they are out there! I agree though that cloned plates are probably more likely.

What’s the likelihood of actually being picked up as a result of pinging an ANPR camera? Presumably it requires police availability. Must say the M25 doesn’t seem to have that much of a visible police presence considering its importance. I see more (marked) police cars on the London end of the A1(M).

 

[Merle Haggard]

What’s the likelihood of actually being picked up as a result of pinging an ANPR camera? Presumably it requires police availability. Must say the M25 doesn’t seem to have that much of a visible police presence considering its importance. I see more (marked) police cars on the London end of the A1(M).

They have purges here - a camera van marked ANPR and police motor cyclists parked discretely in nearby side-streets. Most offences can't be charged on the basis of a photo., but not easy to escape a m/c in town traffic.
Someone who should know told me that you can't enter Northampton without passing an ANPR camera (apparently, the local force were involved in its development) but, as you say, it also requires police action.

 

[Topological]

On ANPR cameras...

They are everywhere. So they are constantly picking up everything.

However, the pings then have different levels of importance which determine the police response. I don't believe those cameras bother with speed because they are not signed as speed cameras.

All just depends how much spare resource the local force has as to whether there is then a stop.

 

[Towers]

On ANPR cameras...

They are everywhere. So they are constantly picking up everything.

However, the pings then have different levels of importance which determine the police response. I don't believe those cameras bother with speed because they are not signed as speed cameras.

All just depends how much spare resource the local force has as to whether there is then a stop.

There are of course those occasions on ‘Traffic Cops’ etc where an ANPR hit is radioed out and the deploy half the local constabulary to chase them down, but one might be forgiven for suspecting that isn’t always entirely accurate!

 

[Bald Rick]

I recently chatted to 2 x Police on an ANPR check in Gloucestershire. I’d been with them perhaps 90 seconds when they got a ping and one of them was off immediately.

 

[Topological]

There are of course those occasions on ‘Traffic Cops’ etc where an ANPR hit is radioed out and the deploy half the local constabulary to chase them down, but one might be forgiven for suspecting that isn’t always entirely accurate!

Be interesting to know what level case that was to prompt such a response.

Although we are drifting a bit from the thread. I would say that it would be interesting when a new generation of ANPR cameras also do things like mobile phone use. Because there is no sign for cameras detecting mobile phone use, only speed cameras.

(I do not know if they would legally have to put signs to start using the ANPR network for speed)

 

[Bald Rick]

Because there is no sign for cameras detecting mobile phone use, only speed cameras.

The sign is a camera sign. It doesn’t necessarily say what it is for!

 

[Topological]

The sign is a camera sign. It doesn’t necessarily say what it is for!

Though most ANPR cameras round here do not have camera signs (for any purpose).

Not that I want them to start putting signs everywhere.

There is a long stretch of the M4 around Swindon that has camera signs but is otherwise just a normal motorway. That is the only stretch where I have been conscious of signs (outwith the obvious 50 bits, Bristol Smart Motorway and getting towards London where there are also variable speed limits).

I wonder whether we could ever get to a point where there are cameras, but no camera signs.

 

[Harpo]

I don’t see why it’s necessary to provide the ‘camera’ warnings signs. If you’re caught speeding that ought to do.

 

[Topological]

I don’t see why it’s necessary to provide the ‘camera’ warnings signs. If you’re caught speeding that ought to do.

We are at that point, though the wording here explains why there is a misapprehension that signs are needed:

What is the law governing safety cameras, speed limits and safety camera signs?​

The law does not require drivers to be warned about the presence of safety cameras. However, the Government wants drivers to know both the speed limit on any given stretch of road, and also that camera enforcement is taking place.

Drivers sometimes think that a speeding penalty is not valid if the route is not signed correctly with safety camera warning signs. This is not the case. The only signing that is required in law for a speeding offence to be valid is that the speed limit of the road must be properly signed. The placing or visibility of speed camera warning signs has no bearing on the enforcement of offences detected by safety cameras and does not provide any mitigation of or defence for an alleged speeding offence.

Taken from: National Archives Department of Transport

Second sentence "wants drivers to know", but the second paragraph does point out that there being no camera sign is not a defence.

A further relevant section:

What is the Department's guidance on the visibility of cameras?​

The National Safety Camera Programme was based on visible speed enforcement, ensuring maximum opportunity for drivers to keep to speed limits. The Department’s guidance on the deployment of cameras recommends that road safety partnerships continue to follow this approach.

This element of the Department's guidance has no bearing on the enforcement of offences and non-compliance does not provide any mitigation of, of defence for, an alleged offence. Neither does it restrict or fetter the police's discretion to enforce covertly anywhere, at any time.