John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Thanks!
I'm a cyclist.
- Thread starter artie
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ey_tony
Established Member
There is no obligation to read this post so please ignore and all I can do is apologise for it's length.
No doubt I'll offend many people by saying this but as someone who held an ADI certificate for well over 30 years and instructed on a daily basis over that time period, my experience of other drivers was that probably only 10% of all drivers on our roads actually fully understand/understood what driving correctly actually means or completely comprehends/understand the consequences of their actions if they deviated from what was the correct thing to do and I suspect that it's a similar percentage figure with regard to cyclists.
As an instructor I not only had to contend with tutoring novice drivers on how to negotiate busy town/city driving which can be quite hairy at times but my biggest threat without doubt both in town and on the open roads wasn't from the novices, they were easy to control, it was from those who were termed experienced drivers who were the real danger.
I was lucky if during an eight-ten hour working day if I hadn't to step in with the controls or take evasive action at least half a dozen times to avoid what would be an either serious or potentially fatal collision with so called experienced motorists who failed to behave appropriately.
During my working day I would encounter dozens of situations caused by other road users where I'd have to step in to prevent minor collisions. It was just part of my job and I found that a high percentage of drivers simply couldn't be trusted to mover off or emerge from a junction safely. It's mind boggling to even contemplate that some had licences.
I had people coming to me for lessons after being caught by police who had been driving without a full licence illegally for 20 years. Currently it's estimated that there are getting on for three quarters of a million unlicenced drivers on our roads...a worrying statistic.
While instructing it wasn't for the first time on the open rural roads, I ended up deliberately having to put the car onto the grass verge whilst moving to avoid what would be an undoubted and possibly fatal head on collision through absolutely no fault of our own after the oncoming drivers got it completely wrong when overtaking.
I can remember the government information videos and literature stating that up to 30% of all accidents involved novice drivers in their first two years. (That's why new drivers face going back to being a learner if they break the rules and tot up 6 points during the first two years)
I wouldn't disagree with those stats regarding novice drivers being involved in accidents but looking at it logically, one would expect that a higher percentage of new drivers would account for the accident statistics but in my opinion the government missed the whole point.
The novice/inexperienced driver has perhaps an excuse for getting it wrong but WHO or WHICH GROUP causes the majority of ALL collisions and fatalities? The answer is simple, it's the experienced drivers who cause the majority of collisions/fatalities on our roads and it's this group who should be targeted by regular retesting and retraining and issued lifetime bans if they can't reach a level of safe competence if we are ever to make our roads safer. After all what excuse have they got?
There is no such thing as a perfect driver and although I probably have a higher level of driving competence and ability than the average driver, proved by holding both an ADI certificate with continued ability-to-train checks every four tests and advanced driving qualifications, it didn't mean I considered myself perfect as a driver by any means.
Yes I'm competent but like any other driver on our roads, if I dropped concentration or failed to do the right thing or failed to follow the rules of the Highway Code then I could be putting others and myself at risk just like any other motorist. The primary difference between the top 10% of drivers and the rest is that arguably they can be at least be trusted to do the correct thing and stick to the rules and laws. The other 90% of the drivers on our roads is comprised of those who are reasonably competent drivers through to those who I wouldn't trust giving them a TV licence let alone a driving licence.
Some people just don't have the decision making ability to be trusted to do the correct thing or they are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions whilst driving and I truly believe that they shouldn't be allowed on our roads.
The laws are very strict about gun ownership in this country but life it seems is cheap on our roads. The correct thing to do would be to introduce re-testing of ALL road users every 15 years. Arguably if a driver can't pass a basic competence to drive test after that time then they should either be obliged to take formal training to meet a minimum level of driver safety or surrender their licence. That would solve many problems on our roads.
The problem with that is that no government would ever introduce such rules in the foreseeable future as it would be a complete vote loser but hopefully it will eventually happen.
I can see the arguments against such a scheme and the logistics involved but re-testing would certainly make the roads safer for everyone. I for one would welcome it if it was introduced.
Unfortunately most drivers do not see driving as a skill which needs to be kept up to date and regularly honed. The vast majority of drivers only learnt to drive because they needed to and not because they wanted to and don't see any need to update their skills once they passed their test. Most saw driving merely as a means of convenience and in many cases experienced these drivers are totally unaware of the potentially serious flaws they have developed over the years, which re-testing would highlight.
I would like to know the percentage of drivers who regularly update their copy of the Highway Code or even consult it to refresh their knowledge of the rules and laws? I suspect that the figure is quite low.
It makes one think of just how many instances of road rage alone could be avoided if the drivers concerned knew the rules and laws contained in the HC and actually obeyed them!
No doubt I'll offend many people by saying this but as someone who held an ADI certificate for well over 30 years and instructed on a daily basis over that time period, my experience of other drivers was that probably only 10% of all drivers on our roads actually fully understand/understood what driving correctly actually means or completely comprehends/understand the consequences of their actions if they deviated from what was the correct thing to do and I suspect that it's a similar percentage figure with regard to cyclists.
As an instructor I not only had to contend with tutoring novice drivers on how to negotiate busy town/city driving which can be quite hairy at times but my biggest threat without doubt both in town and on the open roads wasn't from the novices, they were easy to control, it was from those who were termed experienced drivers who were the real danger.
I was lucky if during an eight-ten hour working day if I hadn't to step in with the controls or take evasive action at least half a dozen times to avoid what would be an either serious or potentially fatal collision with so called experienced motorists who failed to behave appropriately.
During my working day I would encounter dozens of situations caused by other road users where I'd have to step in to prevent minor collisions. It was just part of my job and I found that a high percentage of drivers simply couldn't be trusted to mover off or emerge from a junction safely. It's mind boggling to even contemplate that some had licences.
I had people coming to me for lessons after being caught by police who had been driving without a full licence illegally for 20 years. Currently it's estimated that there are getting on for three quarters of a million unlicenced drivers on our roads...a worrying statistic.
While instructing it wasn't for the first time on the open rural roads, I ended up deliberately having to put the car onto the grass verge whilst moving to avoid what would be an undoubted and possibly fatal head on collision through absolutely no fault of our own after the oncoming drivers got it completely wrong when overtaking.
I can remember the government information videos and literature stating that up to 30% of all accidents involved novice drivers in their first two years. (That's why new drivers face going back to being a learner if they break the rules and tot up 6 points during the first two years)
I wouldn't disagree with those stats regarding novice drivers being involved in accidents but looking at it logically, one would expect that a higher percentage of new drivers would account for the accident statistics but in my opinion the government missed the whole point.
The novice/inexperienced driver has perhaps an excuse for getting it wrong but WHO or WHICH GROUP causes the majority of ALL collisions and fatalities? The answer is simple, it's the experienced drivers who cause the majority of collisions/fatalities on our roads and it's this group who should be targeted by regular retesting and retraining and issued lifetime bans if they can't reach a level of safe competence if we are ever to make our roads safer. After all what excuse have they got?
There is no such thing as a perfect driver and although I probably have a higher level of driving competence and ability than the average driver, proved by holding both an ADI certificate with continued ability-to-train checks every four tests and advanced driving qualifications, it didn't mean I considered myself perfect as a driver by any means.
Yes I'm competent but like any other driver on our roads, if I dropped concentration or failed to do the right thing or failed to follow the rules of the Highway Code then I could be putting others and myself at risk just like any other motorist. The primary difference between the top 10% of drivers and the rest is that arguably they can be at least be trusted to do the correct thing and stick to the rules and laws. The other 90% of the drivers on our roads is comprised of those who are reasonably competent drivers through to those who I wouldn't trust giving them a TV licence let alone a driving licence.
Some people just don't have the decision making ability to be trusted to do the correct thing or they are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions whilst driving and I truly believe that they shouldn't be allowed on our roads.
The laws are very strict about gun ownership in this country but life it seems is cheap on our roads. The correct thing to do would be to introduce re-testing of ALL road users every 15 years. Arguably if a driver can't pass a basic competence to drive test after that time then they should either be obliged to take formal training to meet a minimum level of driver safety or surrender their licence. That would solve many problems on our roads.
The problem with that is that no government would ever introduce such rules in the foreseeable future as it would be a complete vote loser but hopefully it will eventually happen.
I can see the arguments against such a scheme and the logistics involved but re-testing would certainly make the roads safer for everyone. I for one would welcome it if it was introduced.
Unfortunately most drivers do not see driving as a skill which needs to be kept up to date and regularly honed. The vast majority of drivers only learnt to drive because they needed to and not because they wanted to and don't see any need to update their skills once they passed their test. Most saw driving merely as a means of convenience and in many cases experienced these drivers are totally unaware of the potentially serious flaws they have developed over the years, which re-testing would highlight.
I would like to know the percentage of drivers who regularly update their copy of the Highway Code or even consult it to refresh their knowledge of the rules and laws? I suspect that the figure is quite low.
It makes one think of just how many instances of road rage alone could be avoided if the drivers concerned knew the rules and laws contained in the HC and actually obeyed them!
Great post ey_tony
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes agree. It's with that in mind I posted up this tweet a couple of weeks ago.
not only because knowing about it could makes things safer for cyclists but also make the usual suspects it a little less angry, as it seems to attract a lot of ire.
Not sure if this in the HC as such. Now I'll have to check!
Pre order here: The Highway Code
Last edited:
ey_tony
Established Member
Thank you.Great post ey_tony
When I had the misfortune to have to work in central London for a few years in the mid 90's I am afraid it wasn't at all uncommon to see cycle couriers deliberately damage cars in response to some perceived slight, often by kicking them, and then ride off through the traffic knowing damn well there was bigger all you could do about it, often accompanied by various gestures. And the way some of them rode really did make you wonder about their likely life expectancy. Red lights, no right turns, one way streets etc, none apparently applicable to them. I am a cyclist myself so not suggesting that these people were in any way representative, but the fact is that amongst cyclists, as in any other group, there will be saints, and there will be right a*******s, and everything in between.
Absolutely spot on Tony, well said.Great post ey_tony
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Tony - I broadly agree with a re-test for driver competence every 15 years but some comments seem exaggerated:
Perhaps insurance companies should be encouraged to offer discounts to those who take an advanced test. Also the police to enforce the law requiring insurance and a valid licence to limit the number of "unqualified" drivers
- assume Novice and Inexperienced drivers passed the test in the last 3 years. If folk hold a licence for (say) 50 years, then ~6% of drivers are N or I. Mathematically the N or I drivers would need to be 16 times less competent to have a higher total accident rate - unlikely.
- I also think you are over-reacting if you feel the need to take control from experienced drivers half a dozen times a day. I am sure technique and skills can be improved but these drivers (statistically) crash infrequently.
Perhaps insurance companies should be encouraged to offer discounts to those who take an advanced test. Also the police to enforce the law requiring insurance and a valid licence to limit the number of "unqualified" drivers
planesleuth
Established Member
Lons
Established Member
It's many years since I had advanced training but remember that the instructor had some similar views but he went a bit quiet when I mused he might perhaps be biased because it was how he earned his living and enforced ADI would keep him fully employed. That said it is a useful excercise and voicing your actions and observations certainly makes you analyse them more closely.
IMO it should be renamed defensive driving instruction however as advanced driving is more akin to learning how to handle a car at speed around a track. Just my opinion, not looking for an argument.
That said it is a useful excercise and voicing your actions and observations certainly makes you analyse them more closely.IMO it should be renamed defensive driving instruction however as advanced driving is more akin to learning how to handle a car at speed around a track. Just my opinion, not looking for an argument.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Better might be "non aggressive" driving instruction.
My driving instructor (50 odd years ago!) was ex military and his whole approach was to drive as though you were carrying valuable glassware or high explosives and you sole objective was to get there safely without breaking anything or blowing yourself up!
This meant first and foremost to stay utterly cool and not panic or be annoyed by anything any other driver did. Then to start/accelerate gently, drive slowly and keep your distance to avoid sharp braking, stay cool, obey speed limits, not be provoked by tail gaters, expect hazards around every corner, etc etc.
Last edited:
Lons
Established Member
You have also just described defensive driving which is anticipating what the other users around you whether on 8,4,2 wheels or on foot are likely to do and be prepared to defend yourself from the silly beggers by taking appropriate action, that could also mean the use of a horn which can sometimes be interpreted as aggression. If I have a tailgater I don't slow down or speed up, certainly don't jam on the brakes just allow him pass when it's safe to do so.
I'll stick with defensive, you call it what you wish we're mostly on the same page.
