Car smashes into coffee shop
Discussion
Hooli said:
To snip that bit out. It's always been my opinion that women are no safer drivers than men, it's just that men crash better. Women will roll into a bin when parking whereas me will roll across a field into a school while racing.
As I said, women have many more accidents than men of the same age, right up until 65 years. If you take age out of the equation, women have, according to research, five times as many accidents. That's not the whole story though. If a male took two kids to school and had to negotiate the chaos that surrounds schools, perhaps the figures would be more equal.
A friend of my wife's took us to a day at the races. It seemed to me that driving wasn't high on her list of priorities. When I mentioned this to my wife, she reckoned 'they all drive like that'.
I parked my spotless Mondeo near a school. When I got back to it it had three separate bits of damage, one a big dent on the door.
Women spend most of their time in towns and these areas are more dangerous than open roads. The link between more women being in town and the areas being more dangerous is not one I'd wish to research.
My unevidenced opinion is that women who take pride in their driving abilities are as good/safe as men who take pride in their driving abilities.
However, back on old people, the accident rate and danger of old people driving is much lower than that of males under the age of 25. So if you want to ban the former due to the likelihood of danger, logic would dictate that the latter should be binned first.
That said, there should be tests of ability from, perhaps, 75 onwards. One night a PC of mine gave an old boy an HO/RT1 to produce his eyes in good daylight at a police station. I forget the actual distance but the testing officer walked to within 10m of a number plate before the bloke got any of it right. Another tested had to look to the side in order to see what was in front of him.
Derek Smith said:
However, back on old people, the accident rate and danger of old people driving is much lower than that of males under the age of 25. So if you want to ban the former due to the likelihood of danger, logic would dictate that the latter should be binned first.
This sad news would seem to support this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35185369V8 Fettler said:
markcoznottz said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Almost certainly be an auto. Most crashes involving 'elderly' drivers are automatics. Maybe a ban on over 70's driving them? It's much harder to crash in a manual. Derek making some good points here.
However, anyone else of a mature age (above 50) noting the trend developing over the last few years? The agenda seekers are at it again. You know, the young lambasting the oldies (baby boomers) 'having it all', the young 'we can't get housing, we have to rent', oldies 'have it all', and of course, 'should be banned from driving, Christ, he's knackered, he 52 for god's sake, retest them ...ban them...'
Oh FO!
66 this coming year, still at the wheel of a quick car, and intend to be for years to come. Here's a tale for those who want me tested or worse. When I was in my twenties I as good as passed out at the wheel of my Ginetta at some traffic lights - I'd driven about 20 miles - on my way to work. As the lights turned green, I just managed with a bit of foot to the floor, trying hard to hold my head upright, to drive the last few hundred yards to get into work. Long story short. Driven to docs by my boss in his car. Then docs call and I'm in blue lighting ambulance to hospital. Several docs/consultants all around, not one of the f....s knew what was wrong with me. I kept keeling over. About 3 hours later I was at work (I walked from the hospital).
What was up with me? It took a junior doc to find out. 'What's wrong with you? I keep passing out. You look ok. Watch when I sit up... boingggg (I blacked out). Have you had a blood test? No. He pricked my finger, came back with the answer. You have rock bottom blood sugar. I'd rushed out, no breakie, nothing. Never done anything so stupid since. Sandwiches etc supplied by nice hospital staff and within a hour I was right as rain.
See, can happen to anyone. Any age. Anywhere.
DON'T pick on groups, or you'll be falling for the agenda seekers.
And as for that daft post above about 50 plus somethings needing checks and more checks and more checks. FO!
Here's an example:
I'll bet you are younger than this Brit? He's 53. He's from Yorkshire and has been surrounded by water (like a lot currently in Yorkshire). Difference is he's been surrounded by water for months. He looks as if he deserves a meal. He's also a f. sight fitter than most half his age! Well done that man.
STOP picking on generations. Stop being ageist - either way. It's not right. OK?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35186209
However, anyone else of a mature age (above 50) noting the trend developing over the last few years? The agenda seekers are at it again. You know, the young lambasting the oldies (baby boomers) 'having it all', the young 'we can't get housing, we have to rent', oldies 'have it all', and of course, 'should be banned from driving, Christ, he's knackered, he 52 for god's sake, retest them ...ban them...'
Oh FO!
66 this coming year, still at the wheel of a quick car, and intend to be for years to come. Here's a tale for those who want me tested or worse. When I was in my twenties I as good as passed out at the wheel of my Ginetta at some traffic lights - I'd driven about 20 miles - on my way to work. As the lights turned green, I just managed with a bit of foot to the floor, trying hard to hold my head upright, to drive the last few hundred yards to get into work. Long story short. Driven to docs by my boss in his car. Then docs call and I'm in blue lighting ambulance to hospital. Several docs/consultants all around, not one of the f....s knew what was wrong with me. I kept keeling over. About 3 hours later I was at work (I walked from the hospital).
What was up with me? It took a junior doc to find out. 'What's wrong with you? I keep passing out. You look ok. Watch when I sit up... boingggg (I blacked out). Have you had a blood test? No. He pricked my finger, came back with the answer. You have rock bottom blood sugar. I'd rushed out, no breakie, nothing. Never done anything so stupid since. Sandwiches etc supplied by nice hospital staff and within a hour I was right as rain.
See, can happen to anyone. Any age. Anywhere.
DON'T pick on groups, or you'll be falling for the agenda seekers.
And as for that daft post above about 50 plus somethings needing checks and more checks and more checks. FO!
Here's an example:
I'll bet you are younger than this Brit? He's 53. He's from Yorkshire and has been surrounded by water (like a lot currently in Yorkshire). Difference is he's been surrounded by water for months. He looks as if he deserves a meal. He's also a f. sight fitter than most half his age! Well done that man.
STOP picking on generations. Stop being ageist - either way. It's not right. OK?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35186209
Derek,
Insurance companies couldn't give a toss if you're a good driver, bad driver or and indifferent driver. All they care about is how much you will cost them. Before the EU stuck it's beak in and did away with common sense, women enjoyed lower premiums than men because women cost insurers less in claim payments. That's all. Someone having 10 supermarket/school parking collisions, 8 of which never get reported and 2 of which cost a few hundred pounds, is a far better customer than the guy who has 1 accident, on the motorway or an NSL A road.
The 2 worst drivers I know have had no fault accidents. They are both mature (not old), know that they are useless and drive very cautiously/hesitantly. They no doubt have caused a few accidents where other drivers have got frustrated, and eventually having got past them, have speeded up to make up lost time. And one of them has been hit twice up the back at a roundabout (no doubt for not going when they should have, but that's the fault of the idiot behind them.
One of them even jokes, "I've never had an accident, but I've seen plenty going on around me!"
Insurance companies couldn't give a toss if you're a good driver, bad driver or and indifferent driver. All they care about is how much you will cost them. Before the EU stuck it's beak in and did away with common sense, women enjoyed lower premiums than men because women cost insurers less in claim payments. That's all. Someone having 10 supermarket/school parking collisions, 8 of which never get reported and 2 of which cost a few hundred pounds, is a far better customer than the guy who has 1 accident, on the motorway or an NSL A road.
The 2 worst drivers I know have had no fault accidents. They are both mature (not old), know that they are useless and drive very cautiously/hesitantly. They no doubt have caused a few accidents where other drivers have got frustrated, and eventually having got past them, have speeded up to make up lost time. And one of them has been hit twice up the back at a roundabout (no doubt for not going when they should have, but that's the fault of the idiot behind them.
One of them even jokes, "I've never had an accident, but I've seen plenty going on around me!"
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek,
Insurance companies couldn't give a toss if you're a good driver, bad driver or and indifferent driver. All they care about is how much you will cost them. Before the EU stuck it's beak in and did away with common sense, women enjoyed lower premiums than men because women cost insurers less in claim payments. That's all. Someone having 10 supermarket/school parking collisions, 8 of which never get reported and 2 of which cost a few hundred pounds, is a far better customer than the guy who has 1 accident, on the motorway or an NSL A road.
The 2 worst drivers I know have had no fault accidents. They are both mature (not old), know that they are useless and drive very cautiously/hesitantly. They no doubt have caused a few accidents where other drivers have got frustrated, and eventually having got past them, have speeded up to make up lost time. And one of them has been hit twice up the back at a roundabout (no doubt for not going when they should have, but that's the fault of the idiot behind them.
One of them even jokes, "I've never had an accident, but I've seen plenty going on around me!"
That's what the insurance guy said to me, in more circumspect language. Insurance companies couldn't give a toss if you're a good driver, bad driver or and indifferent driver. All they care about is how much you will cost them. Before the EU stuck it's beak in and did away with common sense, women enjoyed lower premiums than men because women cost insurers less in claim payments. That's all. Someone having 10 supermarket/school parking collisions, 8 of which never get reported and 2 of which cost a few hundred pounds, is a far better customer than the guy who has 1 accident, on the motorway or an NSL A road.
The 2 worst drivers I know have had no fault accidents. They are both mature (not old), know that they are useless and drive very cautiously/hesitantly. They no doubt have caused a few accidents where other drivers have got frustrated, and eventually having got past them, have speeded up to make up lost time. And one of them has been hit twice up the back at a roundabout (no doubt for not going when they should have, but that's the fault of the idiot behind them.
One of them even jokes, "I've never had an accident, but I've seen plenty going on around me!"
I've got an issue with my back and can't extend my left leg, so have to drive an auto. I had to get rid of my Chimaera! I got an SLK instead, automatic but I could change gear with the gear lever and buttons on the steering wheel. With seven speeds it was pointless.
I too have been driven into from behind, but both times I was stationary at red lights. It was the same incident. I'd stopped for some time on a steep hill. A BMW 6-series that was stopped behind rolled forwards and hit the back of my Ginetta, pushing me out into the oncoming traffic, which managed to avoid me. After a brief discussion, I pulled into the side of the road, went to get out and the bloke drove into me again, this time with a major crunching sound. His hand brake had failed the first time. And the second time. Over £1000 damage.
Odd thing. His insurance company - I'd said I was quite happy for him to send me a cheque and we'd forget it, but he said no - demanded to see my car before it was repaired. After three days of driving a Renault Megane hire car along came the chap and he was obviously a car enthusiast. All we did was chat about TVR (I had the Chimaera at the time) and Ginetta. When he said he had to leave I asked him why he'd bothered for such a low claim given the admitted culpability of the other driver. He said that there was a tick box system for fraud and as I had not claimed for whiplash after a rear impact I was considered a bit iffy.
The driver of the other car was 55 ish, very unfit (that's what I say now because we can't use the word obese), a smoker and red-faced. He wasn't so much an accident, but a heart attack waiting to happen. He seemed a bit dazed and I wondered if he was diabetic.
He had a horrible wife. Really quite objectionable. She said I had'n't taken care of my car because the rear panel was so dirty. She ordered her husband not to admit it was his fault and said: How was you supposed to know the handbrake was fault?
I pointed out that the first time it failed was a bit on an indicator and that's when she mentioned the dirt.
Mate of mine was 90 when he had a head on collision in his jag with a Peugeot, he was shock but latter made a voluntary surrender of his license as he was truly upset, as an old lady in the Peugeot died, there was talk of prosecuting him which was dropped very quickly, i accompanied him when he took preliminary legal advice, the local press only reported that he was 90 and the jag, some how the fact the Peugeot was overtaking, and over a continuous white line, and the old lady died when she hit the screen (from the rear seat) without a seat belt was never reported.
We need to view press report with care.
We need to view press report with care.
Horrific for all involved & impacted 
On the age point, I certainly think eye-sight has a lot to do with it - following cars at night that brake whenever there is an approaching car in the opposite lane? I'll give you very good odds it's a "mature" driver at the wheel squinting & looking terrified - when in reality they shouldn't be behind the wheel at all.
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc - should help with education & skills, weeding out those that really shouldn't be on the road and could help with job creation etc.
On the age point, I certainly think eye-sight has a lot to do with it - following cars at night that brake whenever there is an approaching car in the opposite lane? I'll give you very good odds it's a "mature" driver at the wheel squinting & looking terrified - when in reality they shouldn't be behind the wheel at all.
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc - should help with education & skills, weeding out those that really shouldn't be on the road and could help with job creation etc.
tvrforever said:
Horrific for all involved & impacted
On the age point, I certainly think eye-sight has a lot to do with it - following cars at night that brake whenever there is an approaching car in the opposite lane? I'll give you very good odds it's a "mature" driver at the wheel squinting & looking terrified - when in reality they shouldn't be behind the wheel at all.
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc - should help with education & skills, weeding out those that really shouldn't be on the road and could help with job creation etc.
I have been advocating this for years. It is fair to say that the driving licence is considered as a right rather than the privilege it is to own one.On the age point, I certainly think eye-sight has a lot to do with it - following cars at night that brake whenever there is an approaching car in the opposite lane? I'll give you very good odds it's a "mature" driver at the wheel squinting & looking terrified - when in reality they shouldn't be behind the wheel at all.
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc - should help with education & skills, weeding out those that really shouldn't be on the road and could help with job creation etc.
I echo all of your points, but also probably bring down the insurance premiums as drivers knowledge would be current.
tvrforever said:
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc -
And what's going to happen with the millions, maybe including you and me, who fail. The kids need picking up from school that afternoon, you have a job that involves driving, you've driven to the test centre, you have a life that's been organised around driving a car. Put in for a retest....how long will that take, with 35 million drivers taking a test every 5 yrs, that's 7m a year, or about 20k a day, assuming they work weekends and bank holidays, or 27K a day if they have weekends and xmas/easter off!I'm genuinely interested in how this will actually be achieved in practice.
dandarez said:
Derek making some good points here.
However, anyone else of a mature age (above 50) noting the trend developing over the last few years? The agenda seekers are at it again. You know, the young lambasting the oldies (baby boomers) 'having it all', the young 'we can't get housing, we have to rent', oldies 'have it all', and of course, 'should be banned from driving, Christ, he's knackered, he 52 for god's sake, retest them ...ban them...'
Oh FO!.
No, you FO. It's a valid point. Baby boomers had it better than any generation before or since. It's a fact. Don't expect not to hear about.However, anyone else of a mature age (above 50) noting the trend developing over the last few years? The agenda seekers are at it again. You know, the young lambasting the oldies (baby boomers) 'having it all', the young 'we can't get housing, we have to rent', oldies 'have it all', and of course, 'should be banned from driving, Christ, he's knackered, he 52 for god's sake, retest them ...ban them...'
Oh FO!.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
tvrforever said:
My simple thought to this is to make driving licences only valid for 5yrs, with everybody having to resit their test every 5 years regardless of age etc -
And what's going to happen with the millions, maybe including you and me, who fail. The kids need picking up from school that afternoon, you have a job that involves driving, you've driven to the test centre, you have a life that's been organised around driving a car. Put in for a retest....how long will that take, with 35 million drivers taking a test every 5 yrs, that's 7m a year, or about 20k a day, assuming they work weekends and bank holidays, or 27K a day if they have weekends and xmas/easter off!I'm genuinely interested in how this will actually be achieved in practice.
But this is the problem, we have a perfectly good system that requires people to self regulate their driving ability. Sadly though, most GPs are too afraid to inform the DVLA in case they lose the trust and revenue of the patient. And there is too much pride at stake to admit to the DVLA that you are no longer capable. Especially as families are further apart these days and as you rightly say we depend on cars too much.
But maybe we need to take the emotion out of the equation and realise that we need a safer system that regulates whether people are safe to drive.
Think of the additional income this could generate for the government? It could be used to fund traffic police, hospitals etc etc, but ultimately it would bring down insurance costs and so make driving safer and cheaper.
So yes there are a good number of people driving and it would be fraught with problems initially. But we manage to get the 100million cars through an MOT each year, so 30 odd million people wouldn't be too much of an issue?
Initially the first test would be eyesight and general awareness. This could be done using VR equipment. This increases development in the VR world and creates jobs that could then be used in other fields.
If the person passes that then you can put them through a highway code test. Once again this can be done in a classroom environment which will keep costs down and allow a good number of people to be tested at once.
Then take them out on the road. Yes this would need to be done individually, but so what? You turn up in your car, this could be examined to access a basic understanding of car maintenance. It only needs to be an hour per person....to be honest you are going to get a good idea as to whether they are going to kill anyone by the time they have driven out of the test centre.
So how do you access them?
Using a points system. They are graded on each part and if they pass (A or B) then continue for another 5 years. If they get C or D then it is suggested that they have to attend lessons within 8 weeks on the area they failed on...but they can still carry on driving. If they get an E then they have to stop driving until they can pass a full test again. It could even be that the examiner deems them unsafe totally, through eyesight or speed of reactions etc.
JontyR said:
So yes there are a good number of people driving and it would be fraught with problems initially. But we manage to get the 100million cars through an MOT each year,
No we don't. There are far more drivers than cars, and many of the cars we do have are under 3 yrs old so don't need an MOT. Plus being qualified to MOT a car is a bit more straightforward than carrying out a driving test.I'd like to know how we are going to test 25K people a day. And then add in the retests for the people that fail. I want actual logistical proposals, not "I think we can make it work."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
JontyR said:
So yes there are a good number of people driving and it would be fraught with problems initially. But we manage to get the 100million cars through an MOT each year,
No we don't. There are far more drivers than cars, and many of the cars we do have are under 3 yrs old so don't need an MOT. Plus being qualified to MOT a car is a bit more straightforward than carrying out a driving test.I'd like to know how we are going to test 25K people a day. And then add in the retests for the people that fail. I want actual logistical proposals, not "I think we can make it work."
Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Fairly simple I'd say;
Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
That's hardly a driving test. Who's going to ensure one person in the family doesn't sit the online test for everyone. So it's going to have to be in a designated centre, like today's theory tests.Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
25K people a day!
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Fairly simple I'd say;
Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
UnworkableSit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Fairly simple I'd say;
Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
That's hardly a driving test. Who's going to ensure one person in the family doesn't sit the online test for everyone. So it's going to have to be in a designated centre, like today's theory tests.Sit your online hazard awareness test and Highway Code questionnaire and get a unique reference number
Have your doctor/optician issue you with another unique reference to say you're medically sound & fully sighted
Input both unique references when you purchase car tax, without them you cannot purchase car tax
Have insurance companies check the database to make sure any car you insure is taxed otherwise none is issued
Without car tax or insurance you'll flag up the system should you drive and be arrested, car impounded/crushed or whatever.
Seems pretty simple to me in the grand scheme of things.
25K people a day!
& yes, people could illegally take the exam for others, a bit like some people do with the regular tests today in fact. But it's hardly going to be a huge percentage and even if it was, you are aware of biometrics aren't you? Even your iPhone has the ability to recognise the face/fingerprint of its user.
That's not to mention getting it passed a doctor to be easy.
You asked for how it could be done, I gave you a simple answer. What more would you like?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
You asked for how it could be done, I gave you a simple answer. What more would you like?
I'd like a system that will make a difference, which "driving test lite" as you've described won't. Failing that, then I think what we have in place now is pretty good. Our death rate per 1000 is too high, but compares very well to most other countries.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'd like a system that will make a difference, which "driving test lite" as you've described won't. Failing that, then I think what we have in place now is pretty good. Our death rate per 1000 is too high, but compares very well to most other countries.
The devil is in the detail though; the death rate is heavily concentrated in a few key areas (younger drivers, particularly male for example) and, when looked at in terms of deaths per mile traveled by the drivers, the correlation with these groups are generally even more conspicuous.There was a guy nearly wrote of a cottage in our village the other year, in a 30mph limit. He was driving an S Type jag and he had a siezure/attack which caused him to floor the throttle. The car mounted the kerb, demolished a two foot high brick-built planter and carried on into the corner of the house putting a crack right up the gable end. Sadly the guy died at the scene, but fortunately, no oncoming vehicles or pedestrians got in the way.
In the same village, same 30 mph limit, just a few years earlier, in the morning commute, I saw a girl who'd managed to clip a kerb on the inside of a corner an flip her car onto its side.
Targeting the biggest risks and developing new ways to make the roads safe for all has to be a good idea.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff