Proposed new laws for drivers.

[Bletchleyite]

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.

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.

 

[styles]

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.

My experience living in Scotland is similar to this. Those who were going to drink drive still would; but it does mean the limit is effectively no booze. A lot of people would probably get away with a Guinness with a meal maybe, but a family member of mine and his dad both stand in the pub when we go out for Sunday roast and say not worth the risk (they both have drink driving convictions also from some years ago, so it may actually have contributed to their changed behaviour).

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.

They already can do some of this.

There are some examples of this happening recently just outside Aberdeen and Teesside airport. Their goal has been to catch people who have had a drink on the plane.

Under S163-165 of the Road Traffic Act the police can stop motor vehicles and cyclists for any reason and legally you must stop. In the case of motor vehicles the police may require driving licence or date of birth, and insurance and test certificates, and they must be provided if requested.

Random alcohol and drugs tests is trickier. At the airport they have been asking drivers to take a voluntary breathalyser. Legally, they can't require one without suspicion of drinking, committing a road traffic offence, or being involved in a collision. Which means you can refuse the test as it isn't a test for the specified purpose of the act. However I do wonder what would happen if a driver did this. Would the officer suddenly 'smell alcohol', which gives rise to reasonable suspicion of having been drinking? I imagine an officer would get away with this once or maybe twice but if they repeatedly were saying they could smell alcohol when somebody refused a voluntary breath test, I imagine they'd be pulled up sharpish.

From the airport trials, the forces' statements I've seen have said they conducted X test and Y had no alcohol in their system, and 1 people was under the limit having had a wine on the plane and were given some words of advice then no further action. What the statements don't say is how many people refused the voluntary breath test. I wonder if that would be withheld if an FoI request went in for it.

 

[Cloud Strife]

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

And here's the issue. I've recently started wearing glasses after discovering that I needed them, but I have absolutely no interest in declaring this to the Polish authorities, as the rules are quite strict: you need to visit a specific eye doctor that should (in theory) test you properly, and then they can issue you with a paper for a certain amount of years. In practice, it's completely arbitrary, so one person might get their licence for 4 years, another person might get it for the maximum 15 years. You're then also obliged to have a spare pair of glasses with you in the car when driving too.

I don't need them to drive all the time, as it's more about correcting astigmatism than seeing things, and I often don't wear them on motorways as there's simply no need. Why would I willingly want to restrict myself?

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.

Poland has started to confiscate the cars of serious drink drivers, which I think makes sense. As our insurance is for the car, not the driver, it makes it even more painful if you aren't the owner of the car. I'd be very much in favour of mandatory confiscation of cars where the alcohol level is way beyond 'still drunk from the night before'. Hard to say exactly what, but I think if someone is registered as having more than roughly 200ml of vodka in their blood, it should be enough to take their car away.

one other issue with growing old is that reaction times get slower.

I'm a huge fan of mandatory reaction tests for drivers. Doesn't need to be anything complicated, it's enough to have a system where you need to drop into a centre for a quick 10 minute reaction tests once every 3 years. If you fail it, then you should have to go through more in-depth reaction testing to see if you're actually fit to drive.

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.

I dislike the 'reasonable suspicion' part of breathalysing drivers. Poland routinely has checkpoints set up where absolutely everyone is checked, and they often set up these checkpoints in places where you can't easily turn round or see what's going on until you're close by. It's especially common to see these random flying checks on Monday mornings, but I don't see any reason why drivers can't be checked en masse for their alcohol levels. You don't need anything complicated, just set up a funnel and check every single driver while having someone stationed about 100-200m before to catch anyone turning round.

There's still a terrible problem with drink driving, but this is at least something in the right direction.

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

I'm all for this system as it helps immensely when driving in foreign countries, especially ones with quite arcane rules surrounding signing speed limits. Germany is absolutely appalling in this respect, but I think the system itself is going to be incredibly irritating in practice due to missing or incorrect signage. It's also a question as how it works when you get 'automatic cancellation of speed limits', such as in Poland where a lower speed limit is cancelled by the next junction. There are no signs confirming the cancellation, it's just something you know by default: "the limit is 70km/h, I've passed a junction, now the limit is 90km/h".

What would be great would be for all EU countries to have a mandatory database of speed limits, which would be displayed in the car to the driver. So, if you're driving along a road with missing signage, it wouldn't matter, because the car itself would tell you that the limit for that section is 70km/h or whatever. This would then be a de facto defence to any speeding claims, because the obligation would be on the road manager to keep the database updated: if the car says 70km/h and the signs say 50km/h, then the information in the car would be definitive. For me, this would be a gamechanger when driving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My experience living in Scotland is similar to this. Those who were going to drink drive still would; but it does mean the limit is effectively no booze. A lot of people would probably get away with a Guinness with a meal maybe, but a family member of mine and his dad both stand in the pub when we go out for Sunday roast and say not worth the risk (they both have drink driving convictions also from some years ago, so it may actually have contributed to their changed behaviour).

It's interesting that it seems to have gone that way, with people all over Facebook commenting on the proposals and suggesting they think the limit in Scotland is zero, when in fact it isn't. I guess it's less about the level of the limit and more about the publicity surrounding it - most people will hear "not even one pint" and read that as "no alcohol", and that seems to be what has happened.

In reality, a half or a shandy would be fine for anyone without a metabolic disorder, but the combination of the change and the publicity surrounding it seems to have gone almost as far in practice as a 0.01% or 0.02% limit (i.e. effectively zero, as any drink would take you over) with a bit less "nanny state" type controversy than that might have brought.

 

[Topological]

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.

It is a good point. Certainly, driving instructors do like the "if there is someone who could benefit" line.

However, the likelihood of there being someone you did not see on a motorway is pretty low (not 0, but as close as it can be). I think the only group are vehicles with no headlights that might be in the left lane of the motorway, but still have time to move if they couldn't otherwise see you (cars with headlights would have prompted an indication). Pedestrians may be on the motorway, but they really should not be. Likewise, cyclists. Because of lane assist I do indicate to join in the middle of the night when there are no cars around, but have once or twice not done.

I leave lane assist on because it has been put there for a reason. I just moan about it in my head

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm a huge fan of mandatory reaction tests for drivers. Doesn't need to be anything complicated, it's enough to have a system where you need to drop into a centre for a quick 10 minute reaction tests once every 3 years. If you fail it, then you should have to go through more in-depth reaction testing to see if you're actually fit to drive.

A requirement to repeat the hazard perception test periodically would probably handle that in a reasonably sensible way. Different people do have different reaction speeds - mine are terrible - but the question is whether you have developed adequate skills and approaches to work with what you have in this regard or whether it actually presents a risk.

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

However, the likelihood of there being someone you did not see on a motorway is pretty low (not 0, but as close as it can be).

It does depend on the car, but it's fairly easy to miss someone in your blind spot who might see it and decide to move right if they can. Though TBH if someone is on an on-slip it's fairly obvious what they intend to do without an indication - it's only really on combined on-off slips where this might not be obvious.

Still, I just find it a better habit to always indicate intent unless there is a specific good reason not to, and I guess LDW systems encourage that.

 

[dcbwhaley]

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




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'.

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

This isn't true of urban areas; there are always options not involving a car. Perhaps what we need to do is recognise that living in a rural idyll is all very nice, but isn't appropriate for an elderly person unless they have a support network who can drive them around etc.

If we were a renting culture we'd probably be less reticent of relocating as we age to somewhere more appropriate with public transport coverage. Even somewhere like Milton Keynes - it's often a slow journey, of course, but if you're retired a supermarket visit basically taking up a full day just isn't a problem, it provides you with something to do.

 

[Topological]

A requirement to repeat the hazard perception test periodically would probably handle that in a reasonably sensible way. Different people do have different reaction speeds - mine are terrible - but the question is whether you have developed adequate skills and approaches to work with what you have in this regard or whether it actually presents a risk.

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



It does depend on the car, but it's fairly easy to miss someone in your blind spot who might see it and decide to move right if they can. Though TBH if someone is on an on-slip it's fairly obvious what they intend to do without an indication - it's only really on combined on-off slips where this might not be obvious.

Still, I just find it a better habit to always indicate intent unless there is a specific good reason not to, and I guess LDW systems encourage that.

Please do not give them ideas about the hazard perception test. I am still convinced that there are hazards in some videos that the system does not think there are.

On the blind spot, yes, though that would depend on the visibility of the slip road. I haven't yet found one where you would not see a car in the left lane. That is not to say there are not any though. However, if in any doubt about the visibility the indicator would be on even if I was "sure" there was no one there. I was thinking more of the long countryside type ones where you have a very long joining area and can see down the motorway for some distance. There are mix of types on the M4 around here, but all require the indicator to get over the lane assist.

 

[Towers]

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...

The only form of “lane assist” that might actually be useful on a motorway is one that makes the terminally dopey use Lane 1 as appropriate!

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

Still, I just find it a better habit to always indicate intent unless there is a specific good reason not to, and I guess LDW systems encourage that.

Very much agree with this. I could never understand why driving instructors and the like should encourage such a level of complacence that a driver should decide whether other road users might benefit from them indicating or not!

 

[Topological]

The only form of “lane assist” that might actually be useful on a motorway is one that makes the terminally dopey use Lane 1 as appropriate!

I prefer a big slope so that Lane 1 is flattest and the lanes get steeper towards the middle, would help with surface water too.

I can still imagine some of the genius drivers I encounter frantically steering against the slope to stay in the middle lane.

(This is not fully serious, of course)

We are not actually far off technology that could make people go into Lane 1. After all cars know whether you are too close to the car in front, would know the difference between the solid hard shoulder line and other lines, and could therefore work out if you are indeed overtaking the car in front (therefore can stay out) or not.

Incorrect lane use is something that is already against the highway code, but people still happily do it.

 

[Harpo]

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

My 2024 VW, has far too many right and wrong side failures showing speeds lower or higher than the actual restriction. It would not be accepted for use as a safety critical tool and its input to legalising automation worries me.

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.

Similarly where one lane becomes two and no indication is needed. Its like fighting with your vehicle which is incredibly unwelcome on icy roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are not actually far off technology that could make people go into Lane 1. After all cars know whether you are too close to the car in front, would know the difference between the solid hard shoulder line and other lines, and could therefore work out if you are indeed overtaking the car in front (therefore can stay out) or not.

Reply moved to new thread:

Car driver assist tech, safety and where such things might go

Continuing this in a new thread: We are not actually far off technology that could make people go into Lane 1. After all cars know whether you are too close to the car in front, would know the difference between the solid hard shoulder line and other lines, and could therefore work out if you...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Towers]

This thread reminds me of a discussion elsewhere regarding the current crop of police vehicles since BMW ceased supplying them. In the large SUV category (BMW X5) apparently none of the replacement options are ideal, but Volvos are especially disliked as they are so full of safety systems - which the manufacturer apparently refuses to remove - that drivers have to fight the thing constantly when trying to conduct a pursuit or any sort of close tactical measures!

 

[D Mylchreest]

I'm 81 and I've been driving for 25 years. Before that I used my bicycle and the train to get about but I got arthritis in my lower back which stopped the cycling.
I have needed to wear glasses all the time since 14 and I have recently had cataract operations on both eyes, but only after I told the optician that it was clear that I couldn't meet the eyesight requirements of seeing a number plate at 20 metres or so. I suspect it was clear to them that that had been true for a while.
The point of this is that although I fully support these changes there has to be the ability to correct issues in a timely manner and that is not just the provision of specs. Other appropriate treatments need to be available too.
It's also worth pointing out that, for most people, eyesight changes in their mid-forties, so perhaps the age related requirements are not early enough.

 

[Topological]

I'd question how good tech is that knows if you're too close to the car in front. I drove a friend's car last week which had adaptive cruise control, and on none of the settings did I feel comfortably distant from the car in front - the "nearest" setting I felt was downright dangerous and well under the "two second rule" which is an absolute bare minimum in perfect conditions. I personally think it should not be legal for these systems to allow closer than the Highway Code stopping distances.

There are also considerations like how far the next car to overtake is and how busy the motorway is, and if it is three or four lanes. Changing lane comes with risk in itself, so sometimes staying out for a second overtake is the best and safest approach where that overtake will be quite soon. Diving in and out at high speed as is common for drivers of premium German cars is really not a sensible practice.

I do not think I have ever used my adaptive cruise. Cruise goes off if there is even a chance that I won't be able to keep my set speed. However, I think it is just a parameter adjustment in the algorithm to get it to obey the two second rule.

For the overtaking, it would be possible to override like the all the other "assist" options. However, the fact that it needed to be consciously overriden would at least make a few people think twice before sitting in the wrong lane. I am thinking regular need to override as well.

I am assuming as well that blind spot assist is on (that is a very nice feature)

 

[Bletchleyite]

New thread for driver assist tech which is going quite a long way away from the original premise of the thread:

Car driver assist tech, safety and where such things might go

Continuing this in a new thread: We are not actually far off technology that could make people go into Lane 1. After all cars know whether you are too close to the car in front, would know the difference between the solid hard shoulder line and other lines, and could therefore work out if you...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[lachlan]

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

Plenty of people get on fine without a car, it's only sensible to plan ahead and consider what you would do if you lost your drivers license. A bit like considering how you would adapt your house if you couldn't climb stairs.

 

[styles]

It's interesting that it seems to have gone that way, with people all over Facebook commenting on the proposals and suggesting they think the limit in Scotland is zero, when in fact it isn't. I guess it's less about the level of the limit and more about the publicity surrounding it - most people will hear "not even one pint" and read that as "no alcohol", and that seems to be what has happened.

In reality, a half or a shandy would be fine for anyone without a metabolic disorder, but the combination of the change and the publicity surrounding it seems to have gone almost as far in practice as a 0.01% or 0.02% limit (i.e. effectively zero, as any drink would take you over) with a bit less "nanny state" type controversy than that might have brought.

Scotland's drink driving limits are a lot closer (or indeed the same) as most European countries. I find driving in those countries people tend to just give the beers a miss entirely also.

England & Wales' limits are a lot closer/the same as a lot more African and North American countries. Again only anecdotally, I think you see people weighing up whether they're ok to drive or not.

I believe there are studies reinforcing the idea of the 'mouthwash defence' to justify not having a limit of 0.00%, but it's ruled out by just waiting 20 minutes then resampling, after which the residual ethanol in the dental cavities has gone. I'm sure if you ate a dozen bananas and didn't get hyperkalemia you might get a reading above 0.00%, but it still wouldn't get to Scotland's drink drive limit. I reckon you could safely half Scotland's limit again which really would put people off having 'just the one' if it was necessary.

 

[AM9]

Plenty of people get on fine without a car, it's only sensible to plan ahead and consider what you would do if you lost your drivers license. A bit like considering how you would adapt your house if you couldn't climb stairs.

I ignored that post as I couldn't beleive that anybody would actually post such a comment here and mean it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe there are studies reinforcing the idea of the 'mouthwash defence' to justify not having a limit of 0.00%, but it's ruled out by just waiting 20 minutes then resampling, after which the residual ethanol in the dental cavities has gone. I'm sure if you ate a dozen bananas and didn't get hyperkalemia you might get a reading above 0.00%, but it still wouldn't get to Scotland's drink drive limit. I reckon you could safely half Scotland's limit again which really would put people off having 'just the one' if it was necessary.

0.01% or 0.02% can be used as "effective zero" i.e. no alcoholic drinks at all but wouldn't catch mouthwash or a single liqueur chocolate or similar irrelevant "de minimis" quantities. I think Poland is 0.02%.

If I recall it's only Muslim countries where all alcohol is avoided entirely that use absolute zero.

I do wonder if typical Scottish nanny-state one-upmanship as seen during COVID may indeed result in them shifting to 0.02% to stay ahead of England. There is little evidence of this being necessary (the effect of half a pint is negligible if any at all) but they usually can't resist.

 

[styles]

0.01% or 0.02% can be used as "effective zero" i.e. no alcoholic drinks at all but wouldn't catch mouthwash or a single liqueur chocolate or similar irrelevant "de minimis" quantities. I think Poland is 0.02%.

If I recall it's only Muslim countries where all alcohol is avoided entirely that use absolute zero.

I do wonder if typical Scottish nanny-state one-upmanship as seen during COVID may indeed result in them shifting to 0.02% to stay ahead of England.

I can't see Scotland changing the drink drive limit, no. Bigger fish to fry frankly. Plus we tend to put things on hold due to cost at the moment, e.g. Scotland was going to bring in speed awareness courses (as the evidence shows they're very effective), but it got shelved because Police Scotland didn't have the £0.5m implementation cost.

 

[Topological]

Plenty of people get on fine without a car, it's only sensible to plan ahead and consider what you would do if you lost your drivers license. A bit like considering how you would adapt your house if you couldn't climb stairs.

Agree

If you live in a city centre, then you probably do not even have anywhere to put a car. There are plenty of people living in the new apartments in central Manchester (for example) who can function very happily without cars.

I think we are pre-conditioned to imagine everyone living outside that inner industrial belt most cities have. Those belts closed a long time ago. Not everyone is living in suburbia (even if a high percentage are). I would fully agree with posters who say that large swathes of the UK are planned without thought to those who do not have access to a car.

I am not at the point of planning a house without being able to use the stairs, beyond knowing that having a toilet downstairs (I have done well for myself) is necessary. A full bathroom downstairs will be an adaptation expense if the worst happens.

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

I can't see Scotland changing the drink drive limit, no. Bigger fish to fry frankly. Plus we tend to put things on hold due to cost at the moment, e.g. Scotland was going to bring in speed awareness courses (as the evidence shows they're very effective), but it got shelved because Police Scotland didn't have the £0.5m implementation cost.

Does that mean Scotland is straight to points?

 

[styles]

Does that mean Scotland is straight to points?

Yeah. They don't publish whether they follow the NPCC recommended 10%+2mph enforcement threshold for speeding, I think they're lower than that threshold, but after that it's straight to FPN for 3 points/£100 fine, or court for ridiculous speeds.

 

[The exile]

Very much agree with this. I could never understand why driving instructors and the like should encourage such a level of complacence that a driver should decide whether other road users might benefit from them indicating or not!

Don’t understand this either - surely the point should be to develop muscle memory and an auto-association of signalling before manoeuvring? The times where indicating unnecessarily is dangerous must be infinitesimal compared with the other way around.

 

[styles]

Don’t understand this either - surely the point should be to develop muscle memory and an auto-association of signalling before manoeuvring?

The counter argument to this is muscle memory isn't good for signalling, but not all signalling is good signalling.

If about to overtake a few parked cars ahead, but there's a T-junction 30 yards up on the right, indicating right might mislead people into thinking the signal is for turning right rather than passing the parked cars. Or indeed if people make it muscle memory to signal left 5 seconds before a roundabout where they're going left, but then there's a junction or another slip road on their left, it can be misleading.

The times where indicating unnecessarily is dangerous must be infinitesimal compared with the other way around.

Which is why people shouldn't use muscle memory and should make conscious decisions when driving. That way you cover both.

 

[Cloud Strife]

A requirement to repeat the hazard perception test periodically would probably handle that in a reasonably sensible way. Different people do have different reaction speeds - mine are terrible - but the question is whether you have developed adequate skills and approaches to work with what you have in this regard or whether it actually presents a risk.

Yup, I think it can be done in a sensible way, with drop-in centres and the ability to do the test at any time. It should be something easily available in shopping centres and the like, so that there's no hassle with 'book 26 weeks in advance for a 10 minute test' that's only available in a handful of places. Having said that, the hazard perception test has some flaws in how it actually evaluates drivers, so I'd be wary about using it for those who have their tests.

I think Poland is 0.02%.

It is, but it's almost always confirmed with a blood test, not just a second breath test so that they can precisely say what your alcohol level was when stopped. The Czech Republic is at 0.0%, but in practice, it's 0.024% as long as you don't admit to actually having drank anything.

One thing I'd like to see introduced is a charge of "impeding progress" on open roads. Let's say you're driving on the A9 in summer, there's no traffic in front of you and there's a long sweeping bend such as here. If someone is caught here going below 40mph and holding up traffic without using the layby, they should be punished in the same way as someone driving too fast. It happens all too often on single carriageway roads where someone is clearly afraid to go faster, yet it causes a lot of frustration and pollution as traffic builds up.

 

[styles]

I wonder if mindfulness should be a mandatory part of training. There must be a decent chunk of collisions which could be avoided by simply making things a 'non-event' as Ashley Neal calls it. It doesn't help that dashcam footage uploaded to YouTube can be monetised, and you see clips of people seeming to actually accelerate into problems, typically when they feel they had 'right of way'. People make mistakes - raging at them, blaring the horn, punish passing them etc isn't going to change their behaviour.

 

[bramling]

My 2024 VW, has far too many right and wrong side failures showing speeds lower or higher than the actual restriction. It would not be accepted for use as a safety critical tool and its input to legalising automation worries me.

Similarly where one lane becomes two and no indication is needed. Its like fighting with your vehicle which is incredibly unwelcome on icy roads.

I’ve had it on motorways where there are markings left over from roadworks which have been erased by an imprint left on the road. All of a sudden the car tried to swerve to the right. That was my first journey after picking up the car, and the feature was disabled after that and I haven’t enabled it since. Thankfully once disabled it remains off and doesn’t re-enable each time the car is started.

 

[JamesT]

One thing I'd like to see introduced is a charge of "impeding progress" on open roads. Let's say you're driving on the A9 in summer, there's no traffic in front of you and there's a long sweeping bend such as here. If someone is caught here going below 40mph and holding up traffic without using the layby, they should be punished in the same way as someone driving too fast. It happens all too often on single carriageway roads where someone is clearly afraid to go faster, yet it causes a lot of frustration and pollution as traffic builds up.

Driving too slowly like that would already be covered by the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving. But it requires police to be able to enforce it.