Do we need a "softer" way of mandating driver reassessments?

Do we need a "softer" way of mandating driver reassessments?

Author
Discussion

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

129 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Words of advice and a gentle chat seems appropriate.

Due care and attention if it was malicious (as an extreme example - slowing down to 20mph to deliberately slow and block)
Precisely.

25NAD90TUL

666 posts

132 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
I agree with what spitfire is saying.

Someone who is inattentive enough to not see the fuzz on b&ts behind them isn't really paying much attention surely? IMO they should have a word when they get a free minute or two, after all if the driver can't see or hear that, what else are they likely to miss? Perhaps a charge of due care is in order imo.

If the person has seen/heard the bibs and doesn't move over because 'I'm not moving over for them because they have no right of passage' then that is very poor form and completely irresponsible, given that the fuzz are likely to be responding to an RTA or attack in progress or something similar where seconds do count. Could that person be guilty of obstructing a bobby in the course of their duty even?

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

129 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Ideally words of advice would be useful, if nothing else to educate. Next time they might just take that extra glance in the mirror.
Following it up though would in the majority of cases be tricky given that the driver may not be local.
But yes, I don't know how anyone can miss fully marked emergency vehicles on b&ts when they're right behind you!

Obstruct would be a possibility if they were clearly doing it on purpose. And these would be worth following up. IMO.

Nigel Worc's

8,121 posts

189 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
25NAD90TUL said:
I agree with what spitfire is saying.

Someone who is inattentive enough to not see the fuzz on b&ts behind them isn't really paying much attention surely? IMO they should have a word when they get a free minute or two, after all if the driver can't see or hear that, what else are they likely to miss? Perhaps a charge of due care is in order imo.

If the person has seen/heard the bibs and doesn't move over because 'I'm not moving over for them because they have no right of passage' then that is very poor form and completely irresponsible, given that the fuzz are likely to be responding to an RTA or attack in progress or something similar where seconds do count. Could that person be guilty of obstructing a bobby in the course of their duty even?
There are plenty of occasions when not holding them up is actually breaking the law (although most of us, most of the time, choose to break the law to assist them).

I don't think it is enough of an issue for a constable to waste his time on, but that's just my opinion of course.

LucreLout

908 posts

119 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
We should just randomly retest 5% of the driving population at random every year.

Your name drops out of a hat this month, you have 28 days to repass your test or stop driving.

I'd be very confident of passing, so would love to see such a system.

Vaud

50,607 posts

156 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
We should just randomly retest 5% of the driving population at random every year.

Your name drops out of a hat this month, you have 28 days to repass your test or stop driving.

I'd be very confident of passing, so would love to see such a system.
Why random? Why not just base it on actual risk?

lbc

3,218 posts

218 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
How about a retest for anyone that commits a driving offence that requires going to court.

cptsideways

13,551 posts

253 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Just introduce a licence cull system

IainT

10,040 posts

239 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
What I have an issue with is your presumption of right of passage, you don't have one, it is a request, you should know this.
I understand the point you're trying to make but I don't understand why you feel it's important or noteworthy. Are you saying that you wouldn't do what you can safely do to easy the passage of emergency vehicles? I'm sure you're not but that's the only real conclusion I can draw from the point you're belabouring.

I'd always presume to act as though the emergency services have a "right of passage" even if not enshrined in law - it might be me they're rushing to help next time. In the same way I won't impede another driver trying to make progress, I certainly wouldn't be obtuse towards the Police.

Making life harder for anyone to pass pushes them to make decisions and delays the point at which they make them - it could have dire consequences if the resulting choice is poorly judged. Police on the way to an emergency are under far more pressure and me on my commute to work and aren't prescient.

Vaud

50,607 posts

156 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
What I have an issue with is your presumption of right of passage, you don't have one, it is a request, you should know this.
If you want to Captain Pedantic... not even a request...

"Only police vehicles within the Force that are equipped with two tone horns/sirens and blue lights should only be used in emergency situations to warn others. Such equipment gives no right of precedence whatsoever. They are simply warning devices to alert other road users and pedestrians to the presence of a police vehicle responding to an emergency situation."

(http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/YourRightInformation/FreedomInformation/Policies/D227.pdf)

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

133 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
lbc said:
How about a retest for anyone that commits a driving offence that requires going to court.
I would be happy to see a re-test as part of the sentencing norm for most due care/careless/dangerous driving convictions.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

218 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
lbc said:
How about a retest for anyone that commits a driving offence that requires going to court.
I would be happy to see a re-test as part of the sentencing norm for most due care/careless/dangerous driving convictions.
An extended retest is already mandatory for Dangerous Driving convictions.

Jon1967x

7,232 posts

125 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
lbc said:
How about a retest for anyone that commits a driving offence that requires going to court.
I would be happy to see a re-test as part of the sentencing norm for most due care/careless/dangerous driving convictions.
I'd be happy for a retest every 10 years as part of your driving license renewal. 30 min run out, a few highway code questions and thats it. Impractical maybe to test everyone so I'd start with anyone who's job it is to drive professionally - taxi drivers, van drivers, and so on and those aged 60 and over, alternatively anyone thats held a license for say 30 years. Maybe those who want to tow say a caravan. We all know the joke... Granddad has never been in a accident but he's seen loads.


lbc

3,218 posts

218 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
How about adding proof of recent eyesight test as a requirement when applying for Vehicle Tax?


Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

245 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
We should just randomly retest 5% of the driving population at random every year.

Your name drops out of a hat this month, you have 28 days to repass your test or stop driving.

I'd be very confident of passing, so would love to see such a system.
In many areas of the country you'd struggle to get a test appointment within 28 days, so that's quite a large group of people you've just f'ed over.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

245 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
lbc said:
How about adding proof of recent eyesight test as a requirement when applying for Vehicle Tax?
We're talking about a large vehicle with flashing lights and a siren; I somehow doubt eyesight is the issue.

LordHaveMurci

12,045 posts

170 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Having been in the back of an Ambulance on blues & twos with my mate strapped to a spinal board I personally would love traffic cops to follow these retards up that fail to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. Worrying isn't it that they can't see or hear a vehicle that large & loud approaching, then following them, sometimes for quite some distance.

Foppo

2,344 posts

125 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
Vaud said:
Nigel Worc's said:
I've never knowingly, purposely, held up an emergency vehicle in my life.

You do seem a little jumped up though, get over yourself.
Actually Nigel I think you are a little provocative/pedantic comment in your postings, e.g. "presumption of right of passage" comment.

Personally I don't care if it is a request to move over or a right. I move over when I see a blue light.
So do I, but it is a request, not a demand, and there are no rules requiring any of us to do so, so if someone doesn't, what is the spitty one going to charge them with by "following it up" ?
Why argue? I move over anytime if I see a blue light behind me most of us do.
The other day Ambulance tried to get by in heavy traffic.The car in front of me wouldn't move.Eventually ambulance managed to find a gap.Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.

Nightmare

5,188 posts

285 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
In many areas of the country you'd struggle to get a test appointment within 28 days, so that's quite a large group of people you've just f'ed over.
yes currently, but if such a scheme was introduced, wouldn't it have the knock-on benefit of employing more people to administer the additional workload which is being paid for by all these new test takers?

LucreLout

908 posts

119 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Why random? Why not just base it on actual risk?
Ok, cool. I'm happy with that. How are you going to define who is the biggest risk?