What road traffic law would you introduce?
Discussion
Oilchange said:
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)
Are you sure? Seems there is a a separate offence not to renew the photocard. My licence expires in 2039 so how does that work?
(The photocard expires every ten years but isnt getting renewed)
According to a DVLA spokesman, qualified drivers are still entitled to drive a vehicle if their licence has expired, but what they must be aware of is that they could be charged with the offence of failing to renew their licence. If the matter went to court, then the motorist could end up with a £1,000 fine. The spokesman went on to say that the reason photocard licences needed to be renewed every ten years was because people's faces would change over that period, so updates are essential.
The same article also says this would mean insurance companies may deem it as contrary to their policy wording and not pay out or claw back anything they do pay out.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 15th October 10:26
heebeegeetee said:
And only "faster" because the traffic in front is being delayed. Like saying Hamilton should move over for Stroll when they're behind a safety car.
Ah, but if everyone moves over for me, that would include the delay.Keine Verzögerungen! Überhole alles! as a BMW Owner might say
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The middle one comes up quite often, and whilst I'd not put words in your mouth it typically doesn't mean what the person requesting it intends.For e.g, the common view is that a trained cyclist= a cyclist who gets out of the way. This is not the case.
A trained cyclist is more likely to take the lane and therefore prevent a motorcar passing them dangerously, rather than leaving room for them said danger to occur.
Not so sure that this requires a new law, but on motorways in Portugal (I think), they have a solid white line between lanes 1 and 2 as you approach and go past junctions. While it won't prevent people from diving from lane 2 to the off-slip, it at least discourages them and would be an offence if caught (and we have plenty of cameras which could do just that).
mko9 said:
rxe said:
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.
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to move out of the passing lane, when faster traffic appears on their rear bumper, should receive a 2 year ban. ;-)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.
ghe13rte said:
mko9 said:
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to move out of the passing lane, when faster traffic appears on their rear bumper, should receive a 2 year ban. ;-)
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to think that someone already driving at the speed limit would need to move out of the way for faster traffic should be banned from driving as their attitude is not conducive to safety and it demonstrates a refusal to accept regulation. Wooda80 said:
I take it that ghe13rte is agreeing with mko9 with that clumsily constructed statement? And that the person demonstrating a refusal to accept regulation is the one who is failing to keep left, except when overtaking?
If they're being delayed by traffic in front, meaning traffic behind catches up, the traffic behind also has to keep left. It'll mean long queues in the left lane and empty right lanes, but so what?
Dammit said:
The middle one comes up quite often, and whilst I'd not put words in your mouth it typically doesn't mean what the person requesting it intends.
For e.g, the common view is that a trained cyclist= a cyclist who gets out of the way. This is not the case.
A trained cyclist is more likely to take the lane and therefore prevent a motorcar passing them dangerously, rather than leaving room for them said danger to occur.
Depends on the training.. Its doubtful mandatory training would involve discarding the sections of the highway code that certain cycling groups dislike. For e.g, the common view is that a trained cyclist= a cyclist who gets out of the way. This is not the case.
A trained cyclist is more likely to take the lane and therefore prevent a motorcar passing them dangerously, rather than leaving room for them said danger to occur.
heebeegeetee said:
If they're being delayed by traffic in front, meaning traffic behind catches up, the traffic behind also has to keep left.
It'll mean long queues in the left lane and empty right lanes, but so what?
I think we can agree that there are broadly 4 different types of situation:It'll mean long queues in the left lane and empty right lanes, but so what?
1) Faster car arrives behind slower car with nothing in the inside lane. Of course the slower car would move over, If it was me I would accept that I shouldn't be there and do that, wouldn't you?
2) Faster car arrives behind slower car who is driving alongside, rather than passing, the cars in the inside lane. Of course the slower car would either move over or speed up to complete the overtake. If it was me I would accept that I shouldn't be there and do that, wouldn't you?
3) Faster car arrives behind slower car who is overtaking the cars in the inside lane. Faster car will just have to be patient until the slower car's overtake is complete
4) Faster car arrives behind slower car at the back of a traffic jam. Slower car has nowhere to go. All bets are off until the guy right at the front decides to do any of 1) 2) or 3)
Dammit said:
There's no conflict between the highway code and cycling safely, so that's a false dichotomy.
i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
Except the highway code says in terms - NEVER block someone trying to overtake. It places all the onus on deciding whether an overtake is safe or has sufficient room on the overtaking vehicle. I understand that many overtaking drivers don't abide by the highway code so what you describe may be prudent, but it's incompatible with the HC as written. i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
I would happily bring in a law where trained civilians can drive around the roads in certain patches snap fining people for being on their phones in cars, using some kind of clever camera in a car or something
I would volunteer, never get bored of it, am sure initially it would raise thousands
I would volunteer, never get bored of it, am sure initially it would raise thousands
Wooda80 said:
I take it that ghe13rte is agreeing with mko9 with that clumsily constructed statement? And that the person demonstrating a refusal to accept regulation is the one who is failing to keep left, except when overtaking?
If they're being delayed by traffic in front, meaning traffic behind catches up, the traffic behind also has to keep left. It'll mean long queues in the left lane and empty right lanes, but so what?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff