Do we need a "softer" way of mandating driver reassessments?
Discussion
LucreLout said:
Ok, cool. I'm happy with that. How are you going to define who is the biggest risk?
I'm happy for the insurers to aggregate and share their risk profiles of drivers and allow a massive set of stats to determine.Personally I would be happy with some basics (no science, just life experience)
- 5 years is enough of a gap to fall into bad habits. Not warranting a retest, but a 2 hour mandatory coaching session akin to speed awareness?
- Retest every 10-15 years from ages 17-70.
- Get to 70 and my guess is that stats probably show that people can slow down, have restricted movement more quickly, etc. So a test every five years and a basic medical 2 years would seem reasonable?
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
I agree- on the problems with B & T. Amazes me that so many drivers panic at the sight of blues. I've even pulled on to the pavement to give EV a decent chance, and what does pilloc behind do - it tries to pass me, till I flag it down .I always open window when I see an EV a distance behind me ,for the purpose of flagging down stupid p[ratts behind me. Two instance spring to mind. First one was many years ago when I had a part time weekend Taxi job to help the finances. I was meandering back to the rank circa 25-38 in a 30 ,with a tail gaiter in tow, when I first heard ,then saw a Police vehicle of B &T coming toward me,with a string of traffic in front of him, so I headed for the pavement, to create a gap. One behind me was so intent on passing me ,he never saw the police vehicle till the last minute and police vehicle had to take evasive action. Unluckily for idiot I got his number, and more unlucky, first vehicle I met pulling into the rank was a traffic car. Details passed ,driver said that his mate in the traffic car would be delighted to visit and advise. Second time was on M6.I was in L3 passing a long line in L2, with one car in L3 ahead of me. When I saw the lights I decided I needed to getinto the gap in L2,in front of the string, but no amount of horn /flashing would shift the one in front, who only sped up and moved over when the EV put on siren. 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.
I'd suggest a lot of drivers are on the edge of their comfort zone and pay scant attention to the rear view.
how has no one quoted this already ?
Highway code 219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
how does that fit in with no obligation to let them pass?
Highway code 219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
how does that fit in with no obligation to let them pass?
ging84 said:
how has no one quoted this already ?
Highway code 219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
how does that fit in with no obligation to let them pass?
It says "should", not "must".Highway code 219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
how does that fit in with no obligation to let them pass?
I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
Nigel Worc's said:
It says "should", not "must".
I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
The Road Traffic Act provides that breaches of the Highway Code can be taken into account when considering whether an offence has been committed. In that sense, simply being a 'should' rather than a 'must' in the HC does not mean the efficacy is entirely diminished.I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
tenpenceshort said:
Nigel Worc's said:
It says "should", not "must".
I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
The Road Traffic Act provides that breaches of the Highway Code can be taken into account when considering whether an offence has been committed. In that sense, simply being a 'should' rather than a 'must' in the HC does not mean the efficacy is entirely diminished.I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
Now show me where that is incorrect.
If you want to be pedantic about it, it says you should should look and listen for them, there is no should or must in the sentence telling you to let it pass
So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
Nigel Worc's said:
tenpenceshort said:
Nigel Worc's said:
It says "should", not "must".
I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
The Road Traffic Act provides that breaches of the Highway Code can be taken into account when considering whether an offence has been committed. In that sense, simply being a 'should' rather than a 'must' in the HC does not mean the efficacy is entirely diminished.I agree with everyone that we should of course move when it is safe to do so, I just felt spitty was being a bit precious and red misty about something people aren't actually required to do, so he'd have a bit of a job nicking them for it.
Now show me where that is incorrect.
Nigel Worc's said:
You are not required to move out of the way for emergency vehicles showing blues and twos !
Now show me where that is incorrect.
If you needlessly hold up an emergency vehicle, the advice in the HC will be used against you as evidence that you were driving inconsiderately (s3 RTA). The RTA provides that the Mags must take this into account.Now show me where that is incorrect.
You takes your choice as to whether this means 'should' is worthless.
ging84 said:
If you want to be pedantic about it, it says you should should look and listen for them, there is no should or must in the sentence telling you to let it pass
So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
Show me the legislation that requires you to do anything for an emergency vehicle on blues and twos.So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
There won't be any, because quite simply you couldn't write the rules for it, which is why people have got into grief for even safely moving past the stop lines at red traffic lights (usually caught by the scamera brigade).
Some times not so soft...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug9BV2v9994
Perhaps the next one will meet Nigel before the Police officer he's holding up...
Martin4x4 said:
Some times not so soft...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug9BV2v9994
Perhaps the next one will meet Nigel before the Police officer he's holding up...
Plus 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug9BV2v9994
Perhaps the next one will meet Nigel before the Police officer he's holding up...
But then I'm just precious, and making stuff up.
Nigel Worc's said:
ging84 said:
If you want to be pedantic about it, it says you should should look and listen for them, there is no should or must in the sentence telling you to let it pass
So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
Show me the legislation that requires you to do anything for an emergency vehicle on blues and twos.So the should which you seem to think makes it optional, only applies to looking and listening for them, yet that is what you suggested you should not admit to not doing.
There won't be any, because quite simply you couldn't write the rules for it, which is why people have got into grief for even safely moving past the stop lines at red traffic lights (usually caught by the scamera brigade).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eme...
Mk3Spitfire said:
Martin4x4 said:
Some times not so soft...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug9BV2v9994
Perhaps the next one will meet Nigel before the Police officer he's holding up...
Plus 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug9BV2v9994
Perhaps the next one will meet Nigel before the Police officer he's holding up...
But then I'm just precious, and making stuff up.
I don't think I've deliberately held anyone up.
I'm still not legally required to do anything for an emergency vehicle on a blue light run, morally yes in my opinion, but legally no.
Please point me to the legislation that requires me, or anyone else, to do so.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Funny. This exact thing happened to me today. On way to a grade 1/immediate, large 4x4 car, fully liveried, headlights flashing, blue roof bar, blue grill lights, 3-tone siren.
Outside lane of DC for best part of a mile. Some extremely uninterested Middle Aged dear driving a Yaris. Completely oblivious. It is, extremely frustrating.
Genuine question, not a trap or a dig. Outside lane of DC for best part of a mile. Some extremely uninterested Middle Aged dear driving a Yaris. Completely oblivious. It is, extremely frustrating.
Say lane 1 has a queue of moving traffic in it, so the Yaris can't pull to the left without barging into a gap that isn't there. But there's a gap in lane 1 400-500 yards up ahead.
You're approaching the rear of the Yaris at well over the speed limit.
The Yaris driver sees you, sticks on its left indicator, plants the gas pedal and gets to the gap "upstream," as fast as it can, then pulls over, slowing back to the speed limit. During this exercise the Yaris gets close to or possibly exceeds your speed, which is in excess of the speed limit, perhaps comfortably so.
Do you do anything about the Yaris's speeding?
Personally? Never in a million years. As long as there was nothing dangerous, I would wave a thank you, greatful that they'd assessed the situation and helped me in my progress.
Just like if someone pulled over a red light to let me pass, I wouldn't dream of reporting them.
Unfortunately though this wasn't the case with Yaris woman. There was no queue in lane 1, and she was just sat in lane 2, oblivious.
Just like if someone pulled over a red light to let me pass, I wouldn't dream of reporting them.
Unfortunately though this wasn't the case with Yaris woman. There was no queue in lane 1, and she was just sat in lane 2, oblivious.
Nigel Worc's said:
Please point me to the legislation that requires me, or anyone else, to do so.
Why does there need to be a specific offence?Why do the offences that have been mentioned to you – driving without due care and obstructing a constable – not function to obligate people to move out of the way of police cars?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff