Have you noticed....

[Jacob]

Really, the only solution?

So things like the following are not possible?

speed reduction
Additional training
increased policing
Age related limitations e.g. engine size and amount of passengers
smaller engines/BHP limits
speed limiters
increased use of safety barriers
decreased use of road signs (which has been proved to reduce accidents)
Improved road surfaces
Improved road markings
Car size limits
One way systems
harsher penalties for infringements e.g no MOT/insurance/driving whilst on the phone etc
Increased priority for pedestrians/cyclists
Increased technology to warn of road hazards
banning of car stereos or volume limitations (not 100% sure on this one but certain music certainly makes me drive differently and the boys with subs I can hear from a mile away certainly are being sensory deprived - and as an aside also ruining their hearing)
Public education - TV adverts etc (Don't know why they don't do this anymore? I remember ones about not going into substations or swimming in rivers)
height limits to cars eg no big suvs/4x4s unless you can prove an actual need for one. They are 50% more likely to roll in an accident and huge increase in stopping distance.

Seems like to me there are a few things we could probably do before vitrifying automobiles

I'd go with all that!
I'd add an obligation to pick up hitch-hikers but maybe it'd have to be organised a bit.
Easy to forget that it's about transport, not about car ownership per se.
It can be the fastest and most economical way to get around the country, carbon zero and can be door to door.

 

[Scruples]

Really, the only solution?

So things like the following are not possible?

speed reduction
Additional training
increased policing
Age related limitations e.g. engine size and amount of passengers
smaller engines/BHP limits
speed limiters
increased use of safety barriers
decreased use of road signs (which has been proved to reduce accidents)
Improved road surfaces
Improved road markings
Car size limits
One way systems
harsher penalties for infringements e.g no MOT/insurance/driving whilst on the phone etc
Increased priority for pedestrians/cyclists
Increased technology to warn of road hazards
banning of car stereos or volume limitations (not 100% sure on this one but certain music certainly makes me drive differently and the boys with subs I can hear from a mile away certainly are being sensory deprived - and as an aside also ruining their hearing)
Public education - TV adverts etc (Don't know why they don't do this anymore? I remember ones about not going into substations or swimming in rivers)
height limits to cars eg no big suvs/4x4s unless you can prove an actual need for one. They are 50% more likely to roll in an accident and huge increase in stopping distance.

Seems like to me there are a few things we could probably do before vitrifying automobiles

I assume you mean vilify automobiles, and it's not the automobiles that are punished, is it?

When you look at the deaths and serious injuries on the roads in the UK, you soon realise that investment in motoring standards and punishment is really in proportion with the statistics, is cost-effective and sensibly targeted.
Only poor drivers appear to have any issues with traffic offences.

 

[Agent_zed]

I assume you mean vilify automobiles, and it's not the automobiles that are punished, is it?

No I meant 'vitrify' (to convert (something) into glass or a glasslike substance) as my response was to the suggestion that the only way to increase safety was to 'manufacture cars from glass!'

As for whether enough is being done, according to
UK collision and casualty statistics | Brake, in 2021, 1,608 people were killed and 26,701 were seriously injured. Which to me seems like quite a lot of people per year to suffer injury.

In monetary terms, according to this report https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/244913/rrcgb2012-02.pdf the cost of these accidents in 2012 came to £15,122m (£19,971,128 in todays prices).

I'd rather this money was spent on improving road safety rather than paying to clean up after accidents.

 

[Scruples]

No I meant 'vitrify' (to convert (something) into glass or a glasslike substance) as my response was to the suggestion that the only way to increase safety was to 'manufacture cars from glass!'

As for whether enough is being done, according to
UK collision and casualty statistics | Brake, in 2021, 1,608 people were killed and 26,701 were seriously injured. Which to me seems like quite a lot of people per year to suffer injury.

In monetary terms, according to this report https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/244913/rrcgb2012-02.pdf the cost of these accidents in 2012 came to £15,122m (£19,971,128 in todays prices).

I'd rather this money was spent on improving road safety rather than paying to clean up after accidents.

Of course that's what you meant...I understand.

Improving road safety would be achieved by banning people-driven vehicles. Coming to a road near you...soon.
To do anything less would achieve very little and any more would cause a riot. Governments would collapse.
Deaths and injuries on the roads are accepted as part of the freedom to drive. Society had decided.

 

[XTiffy]

My comment on "the only solution was that cars should be made of glass", was tongue in cheek, to illustrate that most accidents are caused by poor or dangerous driving. People of my age (75) went through the walking public transport/motorcycling phase befores car driving (I was over 21 before I could afford a car and that had a 750cc engine). Today there are probably many who went straight to car driving (when old enough). Todays cars are far bigger, far more powerful and the driver is far more protected, so takes risks.
I remember (probably 20 or more years ago) a report from Germany that a large taxi company there, had a fleet of taxis half fitted with safety braking system and half without. The result was that the drivers without the "safety" feature had less accidents.

 

[imageel]

My comment on "the only solution was that cars should be made of glass", was tongue in cheek, to illustrate that most accidents are caused by poor or dangerous driving. People of my age (75) went through the walking public transport/motorcycling phase befores car driving (I was over 21 before I could afford a car and that had a 750cc engine). Today there are probably many who went straight to car driving (when old enough). Todays cars are far bigger, far more powerful and the driver is far more protected, so takes risks.
I remember (probably 20 or more years ago) a report from Germany that a large taxi company there, had a fleet of taxis half fitted with safety braking system and half without. The result was that the drivers without the "safety" feature had less accidents.

I think a similar unforeseen result was seen in the USA when the majority of car manufacturers fitted bumpers capable of withstanding low-speed - as-in parking lot speed collisions, subsequently there was a steep rise in these collisions being reported.

 

[Agent_zed]

Of course that's what you meant...I understand.

Improving road safety would be achieved by banning people-driven vehicles. Coming to a road near you...soon.
To do anything less would achieve very little and any more would cause a riot. Governments would collapse.
Deaths and injuries on the roads are accepted as part of the freedom to drive. Society had decided.

Sorry don't agree. Whilst you are correct in that banning people driven vehicles would improve road safety it is not the only solution as I have pointed out. There will always be a fiscal/risk level that people are willing to accept but like everything these need reviewing over time as things change. This happens routinely, we just forget that things have changed.

When motorways were first introduced they didn't have a speed limit so some people did dumb things and had to have a speed limit imposed. I can't remember reading that the government collapsed in 1965.

20 years ago a powerful car was around 100-150bhp and this was mostly in a large saloon car. Now this is not far off what most cars have, big or small, with a significant amount having a lot more than that.

Literally in the last few days smart motorway rules are changing and they aren't going to put any more in. They didn't just say 'ah well it's only poor drivers who get smashed by lorries when they break down'.

Things change and the rules have to change accordingly.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Whilst you are correct in that banning people driven vehicles would improve road safety ...

It's a great pity the government are so slow in getting rid of train drivers - there shouldn't be a main line train driver left in the Country.

 

[Cozzer]

It's my fault this thread was started, originally about how many vehicles have defected lights and how they seem to get away with it. Well, here's something else that really gets my goat, and in truth, it was this junction that caused me to start noticing about faulty indicators and the like!
This nearby mini-roundabout replaced a T-junction a few years ago, in order to slow down A-C traffic.

Unfortunately the white, slightly domed roundabout was offset just enough to let traffic, at speed, travel from C to A by going straight over the dome or even the wrong side of it! It's virtually a straight line!
Granted, buses and artics have little option because of the curvature of the surrounding pavements, but 'ordinary' vehicles?
The red dots represent reflective bollards - they get taken out with great regularity! Imagine artics navigating B to C!
I've seen cars going A to B even ignoring the bollards, let alone the roundabout!
The number of vehicles C to A who indicate 'right' is also astounding - there is no right turn! If anything, they should be indicating left if they've bothered to go round the roundabout...ideally on the correct side!

That's it.
Today's rant over!

 

[Jacob]

It's my fault this thread was started, originally about how many vehicles have defected lights and how they seem to get away with it. Well, here's something else that really gets my goat, and in truth, it was this junction that caused me to start noticing about faulty indicators and the like!
This nearby mini-roundabout replaced a T-junction a few years ago, in order to slow down A-C traffic.

View attachment 157503

Unfortunately the white, slightly domed roundabout was offset just enough to let traffic, at speed, travel from C to A by going straight over the dome or even the wrong side of it! It's virtually a straight line!
Granted, buses and artics have little option because of the curvature of the surrounding pavements, but 'ordinary' vehicles?
The red dots represent reflective bollards - they get taken out with great regularity! Imagine artics navigating B to C!
I've seen cars going A to B even ignoring the bollards, let alone the roundabout!
The number of vehicles C to A who indicate 'right' is also astounding - there is no right turn! If anything, they should be indicating left if they've bothered to go round the roundabout...ideally on the correct side!

That's it.
Today's rant over!

I think you worry too much!
You don't know that the ones with faulty lights are getting away with it, they may all get caught same day!
Or are you taking notes and checking again later?
Maybe you should get out on your bike a bit more!

 

[Cozzer]

I think you worry too much!
You don't know that the ones with faulty lights are getting away with it, they may all get caught same day!
Or are you taking notes and checking again later?
Maybe you should get out on your bike a bit more!

...and don't even mention bikes!

 

[Fergie 307]

I have to confess to less than stellar eco credentials as I own a 24 year old Defender. It does about 2000 miles a year mainly with the dog in the back or for carting heavy stuff around in the back or in a trailer. I have not worn a set of tires out on it for years (I’ve owned it for 20 years) but I have to replace them periodically due to perishing and tire life rating. I just replaced them for the latest MOT, including the un-driven spare. That was £1250…

Same boat, 1994 Jeep XJ. Shod with BFG's and does about 5k annually. Mainly used for towing a horsebox. Runs on LPG so less emissions than many much newer vehicles. Not really applicable to the Landie, but you can save money on some cars by changing the rating of the tyres. My old W126 S Class is supposed to have tyres rated for its max speed, electronically limited to 155, these cost a bomb. By fitting those only rated up to I think 120 or thereabouts you save a a lot. Obviously need to ensure the tyres are rated for the weight. Never going to drive it at anything like that speed as I suspect that would take the fuel consumption into single figures!

 

[Agent_zed]

It's my fault this thread was started, originally about how many vehicles have defected lights

I think you are right to be concerned. Especially about the ones that have the offside headlight and sidelight out. There is no excuse for that in my book. One bulb fair enough it may have just happened but both is pretty dangerous as it obv affects perception of what is coming towards you and how wide it is. Most modern cars will warn you a bulb is out as well so any new car with both out is even worse behaviour by the driver.

 

[Bingy man]

Interestingly on this very subject a car cut me up yesterday, his rear left turn indicator was taped up due to a damaged lens cover, this btw all happened in a few seconds. As he cut in on me I sounded my horn as had I not been keeping a safe distance from said car he would have caused a collision that I would have been blamed for as I effectively would of hit him from the rear . Unfortunately traffic in his lane had slowed and as I passed him in traffic I shouted your left turn indicator is not working and obscured. He replied with that arrogant shrug of his shoulders so f……what . Pity he wasn’t paying attention as the traffic in front of him had come to a stop but he didn’t. The look on his face said it all - talk about karma. Even my son heard him say “ oh my god “ as he hit the car ( low speed so no injuries) but it does show that they won’t get away with faulty lights etc indefinitely. God forbid this incident was more serious then the police would inspect his car and any defects would go against him or any other driver in that situation. Oh and a little food for thought- - - how many of us have seen or been involved in a collision at a set of traffic lights a good many I imagine. Now the same question but the traffic lights are not working- drivers slow down and naturally are far more cautious and take extra care and pass safely without incident????

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In the dark I followed a Transit into a carpark. I approached the female driver whom I knew to be a member of the non travelling community and said your van is dangerous, you do realise you have no rear lights, no tail lights and no indicators? She said yeah, it's been like that for ages. The police don't stop them, they know it's futile.

 

[Agent_zed]

When I was driving through france near paris one February evening, I saw a van with no lights whatso ever on the front, tailgating cars very closely as i assume they were trying to get by with using the other cars as their lights.

Mind you if you think driving in the UK is bad, you should try driving in France. I think it is law to be 2ft off the bumper of the car in front. I don't think I saw a car without any dents.

 

[Jacob]

Some fascinating tails of the unexpected here! I saw a van once with faulty lights too! I was so excited I had to stop and calm down!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Doesn't surprise me any.

 

[Daniel2]

When I was driving through france near paris one February evening, I saw a van with no lights whatso ever on the front, tailgating cars very closely as i assume they were trying to get by with using the other cars as their lights.

It's also possible that the "perpetrator" had simply forgotten to switch their lights on.

 

[Jacob]

In the dark I followed a Transit into a carpark. I approached the female driver whom I knew to be a member of the non travelling community and said your van is dangerous, you do realise you have no rear lights, no tail lights and no indicators? She said yeah, it's been like that for ages. The police don't stop them, they know it's futile.

You got away lightly there Phil - following women around in the dark! She might have misunderstood your attempt to be helpful!