Could he lose his licence?

[ProPlus]

I have a query for the BIB/Lawyers out there, a friend of mine (not me) has only passed his test a few months ago and since then has had a speeding fine, 3 points no big deal, not a problem.

Now the query is, he was travelling down a dual carriageway a few days ago, not speeding and sticking to the limit following a lorry, the lorry moves into the inside lane as normal because the outside lane has come to a standstill, my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes into the back of the car in the outside lane that is stationary.

We have been talking about it amongst friends and the ususal queries came up, how come you were so close to the truck as to not notice a line of stationary cars came up when the excuse of 'it obscured my view' was the answer to how did you not see the cars stopped.

This got us thinking, is it at possible that he could get pulled up on not taking due care and attention and get fined and get points or is that just us being paranoid about it.

Since if he gets points its bye bye licence and a retake and since it took 7 attempts to get it this time hes a little worried.

Any help much appreciated.

Si

[richardthestag]

ProPlus said:

I have a query for the BIB/Lawyers out there, a friend of mine (not me) has only passed his test a few months ago and since then has had a speeding fine, 3 points no big deal, not a problem. Now the query is, he was travelling down a dual carriageway a few days ago, not speeding and sticking to the limit following a lorry, the lorry moves into the inside lane as normal because the outside lane has come to a standstill, my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes into the back of the car in the outside lane that is stationary. We have been talking about it amongst friends and the ususal queries came up, how come you were so close to the truck as to not notice a line of stationary cars came up when the excuse of 'it obscured my view' was the answer to how did you not see the cars stopped. This got us thinking, is it at possible that he could get pulled up on not taking due care and attention and get fined and get points or is that just us being paranoid about it. Since if he gets points its bye bye licence and a retake and since it took 7 attempts to get it this time hes a little worried. Any help much appreciated. Si

Did the Bib attend?

if not he just needs to worry about paying a bit more attention in future.

Hope nobody was hurt..

[smeggy]

ProPlus said:

my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes .......... [licence] since it took 7 attempts to get it this time

Monkeys, typewriters and a lot of time……?

I know this isn’t a helpful comment, but I often wonder if people should be allowed to retake a driving test so frequently. We don’t get repeat chances like this elsewhere in life, so why is the most dangerous activity (in the hands of the inept) the exception?

Sorry to be cruel, but your friend wouldn’t have got their license if I had my way, but I don’t so I can only hope a retest is in order.

[iaint]

Sounds like he's guilty for Due Care but may get away with it if, as pointed out above, BiB did not attend.

If they did attend then they will take statements and come to an opinion. Sees to me that there's no excuse for running into the back of stationary traffic and that he was tailgateing the truck.

If there's injury to the person he ran into I'd expect the BiB to persue some form of punishment...

[Fatboy]

smeggy said:

ProPlus said: my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes .......... [licence] since it took 7 attempts to get it this time Monkeys, typewriters and a lot of time……? I know this isn’t a helpful comment, but I often wonder if people should be allowed to retake a driving test so frequently. We don’t get repeat chances like this elsewhere in life, so why is the most dangerous activity (in the hands of the inept) the exception? Sorry to be cruel, but your friend wouldn’t have got their license if I had my way, but I don’t so I can only hope a retest is in order.

Have to say agree with smeggy - probably better for everyone if he's off the roads...

[havoc]

If it's dry and daylight, I see absolutely no excuse for that...it's got to be DWDC...I know that sounds harsh, but if he's passed his test he should be expected to be observant and aware enough to conduct himself safely on the public roads.

Getting 3pts within a few months of gaining your license also sounds rather careless...although there could well be sensible reasons for it in the current climate.

I'd agree with the "deserves a retest" comment.

[kevinday]

I agree with Smeggy as well. In my view there should be a maximum of 3 attempts to pass the test, fail one, OK a bad day, fail two, OK coincidence, or a naff examiner, whatever. Fail three - no coincidence, consider buying an annual bus pass instead of car insurance.

[Mad Dave]

kevinday said:

In my view there should be a maximum of 3 attempts to pass the test, fail one, OK a bad day, fail two, OK coincidence, or a naff examiner, whatever. Fail three - no coincidence, consider buying an annual bus pass instead of car insurance.

Not sure I agree with this - they may have applied for their test before they were ready. If further training sees them achieve the necessary standard, I see no reason to prevent them from driving.

[jewhoo]

Mad Dave said:

I see no reason to prevent them from driving.

I do, here's why

ProPlus said:

Now the query is, he was travelling down a dual carriageway a few days ago, not speeding and sticking to the limit following a lorry, the lorry moves into the inside lane as normal because the outside lane has come to a standstill, my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes into the back of the car in the outside lane that is stationary.... ....it took 7 attempts to get it

Imagine you have to pass a test to get a dangerous and responsible job with one of two companies. Under the rules of one company you can take the test as many times as you like, the other has a limit of three tests. Someone rather fancies this well paid job and despite not being good enough for it decides to go for it. This someone fails the test three times so is deemed dangerous by company one. This same person keeps taking the test and one day is lucky and manges to scrape through. Now you have a situation where someone who is incapable and has been deemed not good enough under one system is allowed into a situation they are not capable of safely carrying out a job.

I think the same principle should apply to driving as driving is like any other activity - some people will be no good at it. Yet these people can still get a driving licence. I also think the current test format should be changed from technical error assessment to driving capability

[jewhoo]

Apologies for selectively quoting you there Mad Dave. Fair enough one test may be before the person's ready, but three?

The sixth commandment of Flair;

If you're no good at something, either be better at it, or quit.

[puggit]

Mad Dave said:

kevinday said: In my view there should be a maximum of 3 attempts to pass the test, fail one, OK a bad day, fail two, OK coincidence, or a naff examiner, whatever. Fail three - no coincidence, consider buying an annual bus pass instead of car insurance. Not sure I agree with this - they may have applied for their test before they were ready. If further training sees them achieve the necessary standard, I see no reason to prevent them from driving.

That's why they have 3 opportunities...

I took my first test within a fortnight of my 17th - technically I was good, but failed due to something caused by lack of experience.

I waited another 7 months before taking my test again - and made damn sure I passed!!

Perhaps after failing a 3rd test in the scenario above, the examiner could judge whether somebody was unlucky and allowed a 4th attempt, or whether they should catch the bus...

[IS200RJR]

kevinday said:

I agree with Smeggy as well. In my view there should be a maximum of 3 attempts to pass the test, fail one, OK a bad day, fail two, OK coincidence, or a naff examiner, whatever. Fail three - no coincidence, consider buying an annual bus pass instead of car insurance.

I Have to disagree I passed after 4 attempts and i had been driving in fields, had a few motor bikes on road and off since i was 13 I only had 3 lessons and had booked my first test but as soon as i got into a car with the examina my driving fell apart like a cheep toy!

[leosayer]

I'm trying to picture the scene in my mind, if I'm driving in lane 1 behind a lorry on a straight piece of road, diligently observing the 2 second rule.

I'm in no position to be able to see what's directly in front of the lorry, so when the lorry moves into lane 2 I am stuffed because I can't brake to a standstill in 2 seconds (or maybe even have enough time to take avoiding action).

I guess you could call your friend unlucky if those were the circumstances, but having taken his test 7 times suggests otherwise.

What could/should he have done differently?

[T5-R]

Sounds to me like he was driving too close to the lorry and then accelerated in a hurry to pass as the lorry pulled over, only to be confronted with brake lights and it was too late for him to take evasive action.

Either that or he just wasn't paying attention.

Also, one has to question why it took him 7 attempts to pass his test. How many hours instruction did he have? Did he have further instruction between test takes? Also looks like the driving school may have failed him here, as he probably wasn't ready for the test.

[Mad Dave]

jewhoo said:

Mad Dave said: I see no reason to prevent them from driving. I do, here's why ProPlus said: Now the query is, he was travelling down a dual carriageway a few days ago, not speeding and sticking to the limit following a lorry, the lorry moves into the inside lane as normal because the outside lane has come to a standstill, my friend doesn't see this until it's too late and crashes into the back of the car in the outside lane that is stationary.... ....it took 7 attempts to get it Imagine you have to pass a test to get a dangerous and responsible job with one of two companies. Under the rules of one company you can take the test as many times as you like, the other has a limit of three tests. Someone rather fancies this well paid job and despite not being good enough for it decides to go for it. This someone fails the test three times so is deemed dangerous by company one. This same person keeps taking the test and one day is lucky and manges to scrape through. Now you have a situation where someone who is incapable and has been deemed not good enough under one system is allowed into a situation they are not capable of safely carrying out a job. I think the same principle should apply to driving as driving is like any other activity - some people will be no good at it. Yet these people can still get a driving licence. I also think the current test format should be changed from technical error assessment to driving capability

That is down to poor driving though, and not the fact that it took 7 attempts. I would wager that MOST newly qualified drivers lack forward observation and drive to close to the vehicle in front. It is usually experience that teaches us and improves our driving.

I personally passed my car test first time, but my bike test THIRD time - the first twice I just got nervous and made silly errors, resulting in my failing. Some people handle test environments better than others, and react accordingly.

[havoc]

Mad Dave said:

Some people handle test environments better than others, and react accordingly.

Agreed 100%. I have no trouble with tests, exams etc...they've never fazed me. But the missus...she dreads them...usually does just fine, but hates them, gets stressed before them. Yet in our respective coursework (different qualifications), she's got high marks, while I've usually not put enough effort in.

Not a driving test I know...but I don't agree with a "three-strikes rule" for driving...will put extra pressure on those who can least handle it (and no, test-pressure isn't the same as general driving!).

[smeggy]

leosayer said:

I'm trying to picture the scene in my mind, if I'm driving in lane 1 behind a lorry on a straight piece of road, diligently observing the 2 second rule. I'm in no position to be able to see what's directly in front of the lorry, so when the lorry moves into lane 2 I am stuffed because I can't brake to a standstill in 2 seconds (or maybe even have enough time to take avoiding action).

You missed the trick. Just because you are 2 seconds away from hitting a stationary car, it doesn’t mean you’ll be braking for 2 seconds then colliding. The time to collision will be extended (assuming you are on the brakes straight away) because you are in the process of slowing down during this time.

If you are 2 seconds away from colliding with a stationary car, whilst you are travelling at 70mph, then it is 62.6 meters away.
Assuming 1Gs worth of deceleration (not unreasonable for a good modern car), 50.0 meters would be the braking distance from 70 to 0 (VV/2A).
This would leave a thinking distance of 12.6 meters, being a thinking time of 0.4 seconds at 70.

The total stopping time in this situation would in fact be 3.6 seconds.

So the 2 second rule is not a bad guide.


>> Edited by smeggy on Thursday 14th July 16:41

[smeggy]

Continuing on from my last post……

It gets better than that. If you are exactly 2 seconds behind the truck, even if it moves over real quick, the stationary cars will still be many meters ahead of the rear of the truck (otherwise they all will have collided), so you’ll likely have at least another 0.5 seconds of seeing (part of) the stationary cars before you are 2 seconds from them (at which point the truck will be parallel to them); hence giving around 78 meters total stopping distance > no problem > no excuse.

[parrot of doom]

7 tries to pass his/her test, and crashes into the back of a line of stationary traffic.

If it were up to me, I'd ban them from driving for a few months, and (at the expense of the driver) send them to some kind of driving boot camp in Wales where Welsh IAM observers would scream obscenities down their lugholes every time they didn't M-S-M, and they'd also get beaten with soap-in-a-sock at night for tailgating.

[leosayer]

smeggy said:

Continuing on from my last post…… It gets better than that. If you are exactly 2 seconds behind the truck, even if it moves over real quick, the stationary cars will still be many meters ahead of the rear of the truck (otherwise they all will have collided), so you’ll likely have at least another 0.5 seconds of seeing (part of) the stationary cars before you are 2 seconds from them (at which point the truck will be parallel to them); hence giving around 78 meters total stopping distance > no problem > no excuse.

Needed someone to do the maths!

According to the highway code, the stopping distance from 60mph is 73m, including thinking distance. Knowing how conservative these distances area, as you say, there is no excuse.