What road traffic law would you introduce?
Discussion
Single occupied vehicles except commercial vehicles , banned from the roads at peak times .
Brake testing other vehicles gives an instant and liftime ban.
Use of mobile in hand or lap is a 3 month ban , £1000 fine and destruction of phone , also restricts you to a voice only device for 2 years .
Cyclists breaking traffic rules have legs amputated.
Lycra to be banned unless the rider is part of an official event .
Brake testing other vehicles gives an instant and liftime ban.
Use of mobile in hand or lap is a 3 month ban , £1000 fine and destruction of phone , also restricts you to a voice only device for 2 years .
Cyclists breaking traffic rules have legs amputated.
Lycra to be banned unless the rider is part of an official event .
Russian Troll Bot said:
What about something like a beanie hat?
They are great but must be removed straight after the driver’s seat belt has been fastened. I’m sure the seat belt warning could have a software update to tie in to the hat sensor. (Scalp/hair sensor scanner)Edited by helix402 on Sunday 15th April 22:16
Dammit said:
The rage of The Gammon is strong in this thread.
I’ll dig out the accident stats when I get home, although no doubt you’ll dismiss them.
No rage. No gammon. I’ll dig out the accident stats when I get home, although no doubt you’ll dismiss them.
Here are some RoSPA stats:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
Which (scanning the document on my phone in a cafe) doesn’t include the demographic break down of cyclists, so is (shorn of this context) neither supporting nor contradicting whatever point it is you are trying to make.
I.e. if 80% of cyclists are male/80% of miles cycled are cycled by men then you’d expect them to be 80% of the casualties- but we don’t know if women are 10, 20, 60 or 95% of all miles cycled as it’s not in there.
I.e. if 80% of cyclists are male/80% of miles cycled are cycled by men then you’d expect them to be 80% of the casualties- but we don’t know if women are 10, 20, 60 or 95% of all miles cycled as it’s not in there.
Men cycle 87 miles. Women cycle 20 miles.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cyc...
So you are correct that women are a higher proportion of accidents than their mileage would suggest but it is marginal (19% of miles versus 20% of casualties) so "disproporionate" is perhaps pushing it.
Children look a better case (c6% of total miles eyeballing this https://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cyc... but you'd expect inexperience to weigh very heavily against this group even in the safest environment, so I'm not sure that you can rely on that as an argument either.
But, as I said, I would like cyclists (and particularly vulnerable ones) to be protected. Not sure idiotic cycle paths (particularly mixed pedestrian/bike ones) achieve what they are supposed to (particularly if cyclists don't use them).
That particular cycle path eventually breaks away from the road and heads through fields - fantastic solution and very popular with recreational cyclists and MAMLs.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cyc...
So you are correct that women are a higher proportion of accidents than their mileage would suggest but it is marginal (19% of miles versus 20% of casualties) so "disproporionate" is perhaps pushing it.
Children look a better case (c6% of total miles eyeballing this https://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cyc... but you'd expect inexperience to weigh very heavily against this group even in the safest environment, so I'm not sure that you can rely on that as an argument either.
But, as I said, I would like cyclists (and particularly vulnerable ones) to be protected. Not sure idiotic cycle paths (particularly mixed pedestrian/bike ones) achieve what they are supposed to (particularly if cyclists don't use them).
That particular cycle path eventually breaks away from the road and heads through fields - fantastic solution and very popular with recreational cyclists and MAMLs.
Plastic chicken said:
ExVantagemech.. said:
Plastic chicken said:
Thou shalt not use a mini-roundabout to perform a u-turn. I've seen many a close one caused by this, partly because the "I'm making a u-turn" signal happens to be the same as the "I'm turning right" signal.
Oh, so those that have missed a turn or obeyed a no right turn have to look for a grown up roundabout to turn on? Whatever next, suggesting we remove reversing around corners in the test because we should know where we're going? ??There are other ways to turn round other than roundabouts, and we seemed to cope quite well before mini-roundabouts became commonplace. And yes, we should really have a reasonably good idea of where we're going: it's called 'planning ahead' or 'forward thinking', take your pick.
As a delivery driver, I accept that occasionally in an unfamiliar area I'll miss a house number or a farm track & I'll have to turn round, but I won't use a mini-roundabout to do so.
Only today I witnessed a driver in a large Mercedes attempt the above; she mis-judged the final part of the turn, mounted the pavement, in a panic threw it into reverse & backed into the patiently waiting car behind.
Rule 188
Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.
Speed addicted said:
grumpy52 said:
Single occupied vehicles except commercial vehicles , banned from the roads at peak times .
But one of my motorbikes only has one seat! How would this work? Even if you’re car sharing you can’t drive to pick the first person up.
mko9 said:
Well obviously you would take your significant other, a child from your household, or perhaps your neighbor to go pick up the person you are ride sharing with, then circle back and drop them off.
I would get one of those 'real life artificial intelligence sex dolls' to be my passenger, thus circumventing the rules. Would need to invest in an estate car though, to get maximum value for money.W12GT said:
An instant ban for 12months in this country no matter what license they hold be it UK or foreign for drivsing like this - far more dangerous than speeding IMO.....and he didn’t even have country of origin plates on display.
I’m guessing you mean tailgating, but my first thought was “driving sideways.”Edited by W12GT on Sunday 14th October 12:33
Incidentally, the OP, who suggested a left turn on red, (great idea), said that it wouldn’t matter if not everyone caught on that the law had been introduced and waited for a green.
He’d obviously not made the rookie error of stopping in the right lane at a U.S. traffic light, and been blasted by a cacophony of horns within a nanosecond.
RobM77 said:
yes: Roads are paid for out of general taxation for the use of pedestrians, horses, bikes, cars, lorries, tractors etc. Cars are the predominant use, but they must learn to share. There are plenty of reasons why a cyclist may choose not to use a cycle path; for instance if children are using the pavement and running around uncontrollably, it's far safer to ride in the road. Yes, parents should control their kids, but they usually don't, so the cyclist has to decide what is safer. That's just one example, there are lots of others.
I understand but since this is what happens in countries that are allegedly way more cycle friendly eg NL and they share them with mopeds etc we do come across as hypocritical and cycle lanes by any measure are safer, which should always be a priority. However, BEFORE this could be introduced, there would need to be a review of standards for cycle paths and a better system for authorities to maintain them. Given how little effort most put into their responsibility to maintain roads. I think this is a distant dream.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 14th October 13:44
Having just spent 2 hours in the arsing rain on the motorway today, I’m with anyone who wants to hammer the tailgaters.
My proposal would be: tailgating when the road is wet -> dangerous driving, 2 year ban, driver walks home. Tailgating when the road is dry -> dangerous driving, 9 points.
My proposal would be: tailgating when the road is wet -> dangerous driving, 2 year ban, driver walks home. Tailgating when the road is dry -> dangerous driving, 9 points.
king arthur said:
I think it should simply be that in order to renew your licence, which currently you have to do every ten years, you have to retake and pass your test. You would be able to do this any time within one year prior to your licence expiring. If you haven't passed by the time it expires,
Not quite right I think.My licence expires in 2039 so how does that work?
(The photocard expires every ten years but isnt getting renewed)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff