be afraid be very afraid
Discussion
this afternoon driving down the high street in a local village, there are cars parked either side as usual, forming a slalom course,
in the middle of the road is an elderly woman waving at something,
I stopped 2 cars length from her and realised she had dark glasses on and a white stick, she was guiding a SUV backing out of a drive, after 20 seconds the driver noticed everyone had stopped and reversed out,
Granny still standing in the street waving her out, even after the car was out and blocking the road,
I mean who lets granny back them out?
in the middle of the road is an elderly woman waving at something,
I stopped 2 cars length from her and realised she had dark glasses on and a white stick, she was guiding a SUV backing out of a drive, after 20 seconds the driver noticed everyone had stopped and reversed out,
Granny still standing in the street waving her out, even after the car was out and blocking the road,
I mean who lets granny back them out?
Many years ago I walked along the pavement towards a car which had an elderly woman helping the equally elderly driver reverse out. She saw me coming and told him to stop, which he did, so I carried on walking. Then as I was passing by the boot he started moving again and reversed straight into me. 'Ooh Harold, you must be careful!!' was the lady's reaction as my knees went thump on the bumper.
mikey_b said:
Many years ago I walked along the pavement towards a car which had an elderly woman helping the equally elderly driver reverse out. She saw me coming and told him to stop, which he did, so I carried on walking. Then as I was passing by the boot he started moving again and reversed straight into me. 'Ooh Harold, you must be careful!!' was the lady's reaction as my knees went thump on the bumper.
made my morning!reminds me, a mate of mines grandad lived in the middle of Pontefract,
for years he had reversed straight out of his drive,
over the years (probably over 50) the traffic got heavier, ended up with a confused 90 yr old telling the cops he had reversed out every day without incident, so it must be the other drivers fault.
for years he had reversed straight out of his drive,
over the years (probably over 50) the traffic got heavier, ended up with a confused 90 yr old telling the cops he had reversed out every day without incident, so it must be the other drivers fault.
Two old dears who lived together in Hampstead had an old Nissan Micra. Whenever they returned from the shops, one would get out and stand on the pavement giving parking advice while the other would drive forwards and back for twenty minutes repeatedly hitting the cars at either end. Went on for years. Is locals would often park for them if they caught them in time.
furrywoolyhatuk said:
This emphasises the need for consistent testing over a certain age threshold, I appreciate the need for the older generation to remain mobile but not to the expense of peoples safety (or indeed their own safety).
Maybe modern tech has reached the point where it can compensate instead? Mandatory retesting is probably a bad solution given how much the resources would cost and what they'd remove from more vital areas but one could use the insurance industry to easily steer older drivers into vehicles which self park, steer a driver back onto their side of the road and away from the pavement while also spot oncoming vehicles etc?I do think we've reached the technological point where the argument for mandatory testing, which will never happen has a better, easier and more plausible solution.
Could we not, for example, simply stipulate that for a vehicle to be eligible for Motobility it has to have all these safety features and for them to be permanently on, accompanied by mandatory training as a function of the sales process?
furrywoolyhatuk said:
This emphasises the need for consistent testing over a certain age threshold, I appreciate the need for the older generation to remain mobile but not to the expense of peoples safety (or indeed their own safety).
I'd suggest 17 as the threshold where periodic retesting is required... If nothing else it might shift those who don't think driving requires any attention back onto the bus where they can crack on with the stuff they currently do while driving.I was working outside a flat and was aware of the team I work with running towards a car,old dear was in the boot and car was moving back towards the parked discovery behind it ,two of lads selflessly jumped in gap to push against car , almost getting crushed, themselves whilst the others were pulling on the front pillar and one jumped in to get handbrake, only it was up , the old dear had left it in reverse (auto) then got out to get shopping ,all the while protesting what’s going on , you nearly got crushed that what’s going on ,the engine had over come the handbrake,she was very lucky ,a neighbour told me he watches her trying to park in a 2 space gap for 40 mins sometimes,Citroen C1,
In all the panic the lad inside pushes window button trapping the lads fingers who’s on the window pillar
In all the panic the lad inside pushes window button trapping the lads fingers who’s on the window pillar
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe modern tech has reached the point where it can compensate instead? Mandatory retesting is probably a bad solution given how much the resources would cost and what they'd remove from more vital areas but one could use the insurance industry to easily steer older drivers into vehicles which self park, steer a driver back onto their side of the road and away from the pavement while also spot oncoming vehicles etc?
I do think we've reached the technological point where the argument for mandatory testing, which will never happen has a better, easier and more plausible solution.
Could we not, for example, simply stipulate that for a vehicle to be eligible for Motobility it has to have all these safety features and for them to be permanently on, accompanied by mandatory training as a function of the sales process?
I'm guessing you've not tried a car with these features long term... I do think we've reached the technological point where the argument for mandatory testing, which will never happen has a better, easier and more plausible solution.
Could we not, for example, simply stipulate that for a vehicle to be eligible for Motobility it has to have all these safety features and for them to be permanently on, accompanied by mandatory training as a function of the sales process?
I'm yet to find an auto park feature that hasn't been modelled on a nervous OAP. Some feel like a nervous OAP who is being yelled at and getting flustered. The only thing they don't do is keep the revs at 7,000 whilst manoeuvring.
Lane keeping systems get confused by country lanes, easily mitigated by an attentive driver but TBH could be dangerous for someone who has slowed cognitive function (which will happen to us all eventually).
donkmeister said:
furrywoolyhatuk said:
This emphasises the need for consistent testing over a certain age threshold, I appreciate the need for the older generation to remain mobile but not to the expense of peoples safety (or indeed their own safety).
I'd suggest 17 as the threshold where periodic retesting is required... If nothing else it might shift those who don't think driving requires any attention back onto the bus where they can crack on with the stuff they currently do while driving.Even then I think that tomorrow's elderly drivers may fail at 34.
Driver conveniences such as reverse cameras are doing away with traditional driving skills - i.e. your eyes being the cameras. They do say 'check surroundings for safety' but some simply don't bother.
I think that's exacerbated by some reverse cameras not coming twinned with parking sensors, so a pedestrian suddenly passing by a car that's actually backing out is at risk.
I get that reverse cameras are a nice convenience to have and can make things easier, but they shouldn't override the duty to use eyes and ears as well.
I mentioned it on here before but I was sitting at McDonalds in my 30 year old black taxi and some bloke reversed his new (many hundreds of thousands) Aston Martin straight into it. Then drove off. No damage to the taxi obviously, it's hard to see any new damage on something with 440,000 miles on it.
mikey_b said:
Many years ago I walked along the pavement towards a car which had an elderly woman helping the equally elderly driver reverse out. She saw me coming and told him to stop, which he did, so I carried on walking. Then as I was passing by the boot he started moving again and reversed straight into me. 'Ooh Harold, you must be careful!!' was the lady's reaction as my knees went thump on the bumper.
How did she know your name?captain.scarlet said:
donkmeister said:
furrywoolyhatuk said:
This emphasises the need for consistent testing over a certain age threshold, I appreciate the need for the older generation to remain mobile but not to the expense of peoples safety (or indeed their own safety).
I'd suggest 17 as the threshold where periodic retesting is required... If nothing else it might shift those who don't think driving requires any attention back onto the bus where they can crack on with the stuff they currently do while driving.Even then I think that tomorrow's elderly drivers may fail at 34.
Driver conveniences such as reverse cameras are doing away with traditional driving skills - i.e. your eyes being the cameras. They do say 'check surroundings for safety' but some simply don't bother.
I think that's exacerbated by some reverse cameras not coming twinned with parking sensors, so a pedestrian suddenly passing by a car that's actually backing out is at risk.
I get that reverse cameras are a nice convenience to have and can make things easier, but they shouldn't override the duty to use eyes and ears as well.
It's always unpopular with people who know they would fail a retest, but £50 every X years to renew your licence isn't a bad price to pay for keeping the terminally clueless off the roads.
The obvious flaw in the plan is how you deal with foreign drivers...
ingenieur said:
I mentioned it on here before but I was sitting at McDonalds in my 30 year old black taxi and some bloke reversed his new (many hundreds of thousands) Aston Martin straight into it. Then drove off. No damage to the taxi obviously, it's hard to see any new damage on something with 440,000 miles on it.
You are Stephen Fry AICMFP(Bez would have maraca'd the Aston in retaliation)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff