What small changes would you make to improve road/car safety
Discussion
Mr SFJ said:
- Also, I feel that cyclists should also have to contribute to the upkeep of the roads, and pay insurance and have yearly inspections, because A: they use the road too, so why not pay for the upkeep/introduction of new cycle lanes? and B: if there is an accident they have the same insurance as car drivers.
Cyclists do already pay the same amount towards the roads as drivers - road building and repairs are funded primarily from council tax.Regarding insurance, many cyclists do already have it but why should it be compulsory? Don't confuse liability with insurance. A cyclist is already liable for any damage that they cause, they are just not required to insure themselves against this liability as the amount of damage even the fastest cyclist can do is orders of magnitude lower than that of two tonnes of metal.
ALBA MELV said:
Headlights on at all times - See and be seen.
We should all use sidelights only in streetlit areas. Headlights are unnecessary for being seen (rather than seeing with) and serve to reduce the visibility of anything that is not lit to a comparable degree (such as pedestrians).Unfortunately this would only work if we could convince everyone to do it, and good luck to anyone who tries that!
Mr Will said:
Cyclists do already pay the same amount towards the roads as drivers - road building and repairs are funded primarily from council tax.
Regarding insurance, many cyclists do already have it but why should it be compulsory? Don't confuse liability with insurance. A cyclist is already liable for any damage that they cause, they are just not required to insure themselves against this liability as the amount of damage even the fastest cyclist can do is orders of magnitude lower than that of two tonnes of metal.
It's just a desire for equality of misery. But OK, if we go down that route, let's put the other side in place - if you are in a collision with a vulnerable road user (pedestrian, cyclist, etc) a bunch of heavies come round to your house and throw a dice to decide which of your bones they are going to smash with a claw hammer.Regarding insurance, many cyclists do already have it but why should it be compulsory? Don't confuse liability with insurance. A cyclist is already liable for any damage that they cause, they are just not required to insure themselves against this liability as the amount of damage even the fastest cyclist can do is orders of magnitude lower than that of two tonnes of metal.
Facetious suggestions (all of which *would* work):
- ban motor insurance
- ban the use of seatbelts
- deactivate airbags
Serious suggestions (which *might* work):
- driving licences issued for five years; retesting every five years
- instant three month ban for any driving offence that currently carries three or more points.
There is only one of those that I would implement, were I left in charge for the day.
- ban motor insurance
- ban the use of seatbelts
- deactivate airbags
Serious suggestions (which *might* work):
- driving licences issued for five years; retesting every five years
- instant three month ban for any driving offence that currently carries three or more points.
There is only one of those that I would implement, were I left in charge for the day.
Mr Will said:
We should all use sidelights only in streetlit areas. Headlights are unnecessary for being seen (rather than seeing with) and serve to reduce the visibility of anything that is not lit to a comparable degree (such as pedestrians).
Unfortunately this would only work if we could convince everyone to do it, and good luck to anyone who tries that!
I'd rather see everyone using dipped headlights in streetlit areas. From a driving prespective having vehicles coming towards me with their sidelights on, in streetlit areas, is verging on pointless in my humble opinion.Unfortunately this would only work if we could convince everyone to do it, and good luck to anyone who tries that!
ALBA MELV said:
Mr Will said:
We should all use sidelights only in streetlit areas. Headlights are unnecessary for being seen (rather than seeing with) and serve to reduce the visibility of anything that is not lit to a comparable degree (such as pedestrians).
Unfortunately this would only work if we could convince everyone to do it, and good luck to anyone who tries that!
I'd rather see everyone using dipped headlights in streetlit areas. From a driving prespective having vehicles coming towards me with their sidelights on, in streetlit areas, is verging on pointless in my humble opinion.Unfortunately this would only work if we could convince everyone to do it, and good luck to anyone who tries that!
Mr Will said:
Cyclists do already pay the same amount towards the roads as drivers - road building and repairs are funded primarily from council tax.
Regarding insurance, many cyclists do already have it but why should it be compulsory? Don't confuse liability with insurance. A cyclist is already liable for any damage that they cause, they are just not required to insure themselves against this liability as the amount of damage even the fastest cyclist can do is orders of magnitude lower than that of two tonnes of metal.
Yes, then why do Drivers and Motorcyclists do the same? It should be compulsory for the same reason car and motorbike drivers have to pay it. Regardless of damage, A cyclist who runs a red light and rode straight into a innocently passing pedestrian gets taken out and badly wounded. A car driver would have to through insurances and pay-outs, why not cyclists?Regarding insurance, many cyclists do already have it but why should it be compulsory? Don't confuse liability with insurance. A cyclist is already liable for any damage that they cause, they are just not required to insure themselves against this liability as the amount of damage even the fastest cyclist can do is orders of magnitude lower than that of two tonnes of metal.
And also, if a cyclist was to fall and damage their expensive bike, that would be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
Mr SFJ said:
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
Oh dear. So much wrongheadedness in one place. That, to me, is fair.
I am disturbed.
Mr SFJ said:
A cyclist who runs a red light and rode straight into a innocently passing pedestrian gets taken out and badly wounded. A car driver would have to through insurances and pay-outs, why not cyclists?
The cyclist already would have to pay. They just don't have to have insurance to help them pay. If you are going down this route then why not have compulsory insurance for pedestrians? A pedestrian who steps out without looking is perfectly able to kill or injure a cyclist/motorcyclist.Mr SFJ said:
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
So they should pay more than car drivers, while causing less damage to the roads and have less right to use them in return? Odd definition of fair.Mr SFJ said:
Yes, then why do Drivers and Motorcyclists do the same? It should be compulsory for the same reason car and motorbike drivers have to pay it. Regardless of damage, A cyclist who runs a red light and rode straight into a innocently passing pedestrian gets taken out and badly wounded. A car driver would have to through insurances and pay-outs, why not cyclists?
And also, if a cyclist was to fall and damage their expensive bike, that would be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
If I pay a little more tax could education be improved?And also, if a cyclist was to fall and damage their expensive bike, that would be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
Mr SFJ said:
Yes, then why do Drivers and Motorcyclists do the same? It should be compulsory for the same reason car and motorbike drivers have to pay it. Regardless of damage, A cyclist who runs a red light and rode straight into a innocently passing pedestrian gets taken out and badly wounded. A car driver would have to through insurances and pay-outs, why not cyclists?
And also, if a cyclist was to fall and damage their expensive bike, that would be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
Why don't you ask switzerland? They abandoned it.And also, if a cyclist was to fall and damage their expensive bike, that would be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.
Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?
That, to me, is fair.
Or the netherlands, with a third the fatality rate we do, and no tax for cyclists?
But that would require effort and open-mindedness, wouldn't it?
Bulls
t you want safety. You're acting entirely out of spite.Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 16:30
g3org3y said:
Greg66 said:
Facetious suggestions (all of which *would* work):
- instant three month ban for any driving offence that currently carries three or more points.
3 month ban sounds quite harsh for 36 in a 30 (3pts assuming SAC already done). - instant three month ban for any driving offence that currently carries three or more points.
It's not the one on my list that I would implement, btw.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 15th April 18:04
One simple thing to do is to stop vehicles having all the cp in the windows creating blindspots. Especially "Baby on board" but all sorts of other junk especially in the windscreen. Those with half a dozen magic trees hanging from the rear view mirror should just clean the interior more often or change their diet to cut down the flatulence!!
Tax discs are soon to be redundant anyway, as for people who put satnavs right in the middle of the screen
p in the windows creating blindspots. Especially "Baby on board" but all sorts of other junk especially in the windscreen. Those with half a dozen magic trees hanging from the rear view mirror should just clean the interior more often or change their diet to cut down the flatulence!!Tax discs are soon to be redundant anyway, as for people who put satnavs right in the middle of the screen
Bad flashing bike lights and make them properly aligned, instead of the led floodlights aimed at your face that most cyclists seem to have now.
More police rather than cameras so drivers can be stopped for driving without due care when they pull onto the motorway at 40mph or drive along with their mirrors folded in, clearly not paying attention.
More police rather than cameras so drivers can be stopped for driving without due care when they pull onto the motorway at 40mph or drive along with their mirrors folded in, clearly not paying attention.
otolith said:
Hoofy said:
Make it compulsory for cyclists to wear something that makes it easier to spot them. Whether that's a clown suit or reflective armbands, I'll leave that up to the authorities to decide. Could even be reflective mudguards. I don't care if it makes your bicycle look naff. Red and orange lights on cars ruins the colour coordination of most cars. Boo-hoo.
I saw two horse riders yesterday, riding on a bridleway. They were both wearing fluorescent jackets. I was thinking that while it would be sad for the horse and rider, anyone who needs riders to wear a fluorescent jacket in order to avoid running into horse-sized objects would probably be doing us all a favour if they hurried up and Darwined themselves into the back of a nag.
Sadly, the horse and rider would get it, not the idiot motorist.remove all trees from the verges of motorways this could be replaced by brush or heavy foliage . Cars driving at less than 25% of max road speed limits can be as dangerous as speeders ,a full retest at 65 + a medical every 5 years from the age of 45 like I have to with my HGV licence
I'd make double yellow lines mean no parking regardless of who you are. There are more and more old and disabled people parking on them blocking roads. With the increased numbers it can't continue. The lines are on the road because parking there causes obstruction and blocks the view out of side roads. I don't see why the disabled should be allowed to block the roads and make them more dangerous to others.
I'd also make people take their test every ten years. Worried about failing? Then the roads will be safer without these people on them. Would create jobs too. The cost of this every ten years wouldn't be too much.
I'd also make people take their test every ten years. Worried about failing? Then the roads will be safer without these people on them. Would create jobs too. The cost of this every ten years wouldn't be too much.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff