Men and overtaking

[Dizeee]

James-m5qjf said:

The absurdly patronising tone and level of self importance that seems to come across. Maybe I’m reading it wrong.

I ride with a few IAM bikers, and whilst this type of attitude isn’t mandatory, it’s fairly common. Don’t get me wrong, the concepts and training work extremely well, and no doubt improves rider safety, it’s just a fair proportion of these people have an overinflated ego and opinion of their riding ability - based on my experience at least.

Well, if your comments are in reference to me then I apologize if you have misunderstood my tone.

Derek Smith and Von are polar opposites on this subject. ( AD ).

I always post in a way that I feel is informative and relative. I would always hope that what I type comes across in the way that it was meant, i.e. educative and guiding.

As for Derek and Von, I have only ever been taught by and worked alongside one.

Over the years I have always respected privacy and that will also never change.

[LunarOne]

I do like to drive fast by which I mean not hanging around unnecessarily and making the most of the roads I drive. I also abhor the continued reduction of speed limits as that policy makes a mockery of the message that if you break the limit, you are risking injuring or even killing yourself or other road users. After all, if a road which had a 60mph limit for decades is brought down to a 40, it doesn't suddenly become a terrible risk to do 50 on it. But reading the Daily Express online you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a hanging offence. Despite my contempt for artificially low limits, I do adhere to 30s, 40s and some 50s but make my own decisions in 20s, and national speed limits. But as a responsible adult it's surely my business to be the best driver I can be in terms of observation, safety and overall competence. For that reason I welcomed Dizeee's review of my driving, and not just because it was complimentary. I have tried to make a point of improving my driving over the years and would enjoy constructive criticism on an ongoing basis as I think there's probably no better way of learning. I wonder if there's a market for constructive criticism of dashcam driving videos by qualified persons? Perhaps something along the lines of an paid online IAM observer service...

[Dizeee]

A

D

V

E

R

T

[Dizeee]

That's the issue Lunar one, there are so few drivers these days who give a toss about their driving standard, or ability, or improving themselves." Your only as good as your last drive" is still vert relevant to me, but these days people are just too busy or up themselves to even consider this way of thinking. I would suspect that does not apply to those on this particular forum however, as even by reading it, there is an awareness of the fact that AD exists, and can be used to improve your ability. But the readers of this forum probably make up about 2% of the driving population.

I totally agree with your point about the blanket reduction of speed limits. Speed in itself is not dangerous and when you consider how out of date breaking distances are owing to modern technology, it only compounds the problem further. Like most things government related, it is an absolute shambles and nt fit for purpose. However, it has to cover the lowest common denominator and if you look at the average driving ability in the UK, it probably makes sense to lower limits across the board, as I find the general awareness of the public when driving absolutely and utterly shocking. Despite my disagreement with the sentiment of blanket lowering of limits, I agree it is necessary for the greater good.

I am not being pompous or big headed as I fully accept there are some extremely capable drivers out there who take the topic seriously, but these are in the minority. I have been cycling, and riding motorbikes in London since 2009 and I have become sick and tired of having to prevent my own death on a near daily basis. It is my experience that nobody looks and nobody cares. Left turns are done with no mirror check, across the board. Right turns are done with no shoulder check, across the board. Vehicles turning across traffic into a blind lane turn without consideration of anyone approaching / appearing is done across the board. Buses pull out into oncoming traffic across the board. It is endless. I spend a lot of time adjusting my behavior to cater for the raft of mistakes made by those around me. It works, and I prevent injury or death, but it just shows me how utterly cretinous people are.

[Dr Jekyll]

Dizeee said:

Left turns are done with no mirror check, across the board. Right turns are done with no shoulder check, across the board. Vehicles turning across traffic into a blind lane turn without consideration of anyone approaching / appearing is done across the board. Buses pull out into oncoming traffic across the board. It is endless.

People who drive like this do so because they are stupid, Restricting to rest of us to an unnecessarily low speed on (for example) a motorway.


Isn't getting drivers to do mirror checks, shoulder checks etc a better solution to the issues you identify than just lowering speed limits? How far do you reckon speed limits need to be lowered before the idiots start doing mirror checks?

[Speed addicted]

Dr Jekyll said:

Dizeee said:

Left turns are done with no mirror check, across the board. Right turns are done with no shoulder check, across the board. Vehicles turning across traffic into a blind lane turn without consideration of anyone approaching / appearing is done across the board. Buses pull out into oncoming traffic across the board. It is endless.

People who drive like this do so because they are stupid, Restricting to rest of us to an unnecessarily low speed on (for example) a motorway.


Isn't getting drivers to do mirror checks, shoulder checks etc a better solution to the issues you identify than just lowering speed limits? How far do you reckon speed limits need to be lowered before the idiots start doing mirror checks?

I notice that you posted about driving in London, coming from Aberdeen (not exactly a high point of driving standards) I was surprised by how aggressive the drivers in London were in attempting to make some progress.
I think it’s the same in most big cities, it’s frustration causing a drop in driving standards that then becomes normal!

As for lower speed limits, I’d do a mandatory driving test every 5 years. Not the full test more of a checkup with more training if required.
Of course no government would have the bottle to do it so we all get lower speed limits.

[Dr Jekyll]

Speed addicted said:

I notice that you posted about driving in London, coming from Aberdeen (not exactly a high point of driving standards) I was surprised by how aggressive the drivers in London were in attempting to make some progress.
I think it’s the same in most big cities, it’s frustration causing a drop in driving standards that then becomes normal!

I didn't think it's aggression as such, more opportunism. A convention that smaller gaps are OK to pull into and at certain junctions requiring oncoming traffic to slow slightly is acceptable. Just a way of making the most of the road space. Go into a rural area after a long spell in London and drivers seem lackadaisical. It's tempting to regard what you aren't used to as a drop in standards but it's more a difference in convention.

Speed addicted said:

As for lower speed limits, I’d do a mandatory driving test every 5 years. Not the full test more of a checkup with more training if required.
Of course no government would have the bottle to do it so we all get lower speed limits.

Lower speed limits don't make up for bad driving.

I thin k most people would be happier with a periodic review of their driving than with ever lower speed limits. It wouldn't require 'bottle' from governments, just a bit of intelligence.

[dvenman]

Dr Jekyll said:

Lower speed limits don't make up for bad driving.

I think most people would be happier with a periodic review of their driving than with ever lower speed limits. It wouldn't require 'bottle' from governments, just a bit of intelligence.

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

[Dr Jekyll]

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

[Dizeee]

Dr Jekyll said:

People who drive like this do so because they are stupid, Restricting to rest of us to an unnecessarily low speed on (for example) a motorway.


Isn't getting drivers to do mirror checks, shoulder checks etc a better solution to the issues you identify than just lowering speed limits? How far do you reckon speed limits need to be lowered before the idiots start doing mirror checks?

Oh most definitely. I don't think lowering limits is a solution at all, but its a typical "we will do something" by the government. No forethought, no real assessment and no time spent on researching the cause and effect of people's stupidity. And it is exactly that, people are stupid. Utterly, utterly stupid. I have given up all hope with the population, I don't expect society to change at all, only to degrade further with the mess this world is in. Therefore I ensure I am fully and properly equipped to be able to immerse myself in their stupidity and be more or less bullet proof, catering for all the idiotic attitudes and incompetent behaviors I witness day to day.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

[Johnnytheboy]

vonhosen said:

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

I'd rather that we were skilled off the roads than priced off the roads as appears to be the current preference.

[vonhosen]

Johnnytheboy said:

vonhosen said:

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

I'd rather that we were skilled off the roads than priced off the roads as appears to be the current preference.

The best people don't rule the world, those with money do.

[Johnnytheboy]

vonhosen said:

Johnnytheboy said:

vonhosen said:

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

I'd rather that we were skilled off the roads than priced off the roads as appears to be the current preference.

The best people don't rule the world, those with money do.

True, but irrelevant to your question and my response.

You asked if I would like to see drivers held to the same standards as pilots.

By the rationale of "the best people don't rule the world, those with money do" only rich people would be allowed to train as pilots.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

Restriction in the sense of being retested every year or two yes, that's what I said.

Come to think of it having to take written tests that might take a modicum of intelligence to pass would be a great idea.

[vonhosen]

Johnnytheboy said:

vonhosen said:

Johnnytheboy said:

vonhosen said:

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

I'd rather that we were skilled off the roads than priced off the roads as appears to be the current preference.

The best people don't rule the world, those with money do.

True, but irrelevant to your question and my response.

You asked if I would like to see drivers held to the same standards as pilots.

By the rationale of "the best people don't rule the world, those with money do" only rich people would be allowed to train as pilots.

How many genuinely poor pilots are there?
It's far cheaper & more practical to run a car than a plane.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

Restriction in the sense of being retested every year or two yes, that's what I said.

Come to think of it having to take written tests that might take a modicum of intelligence to pass would be a great idea.

That's only a small amount of the restrictions on being a pilot & the movement of aircraft.
I'd rather any money available be spent of all number of things than retesting 40 million drivers.
That would be waste of money IMHO.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

Restriction in the sense of being retested every year or two yes, that's what I said.

Come to think of it having to take written tests that might take a modicum of intelligence to pass would be a great idea.

That's only a small amount of the restrictions on being a pilot & the movement of aircraft.
I'd rather any money available be spent of all number of things than retesting 40 million drivers.
That would be waste of money IMHO.

But the only 'restriction' I was talking about was the retest regime, I wasn't suggesting compulsory 50 hour checks medicals etc. so the cost of refurbishing a lycoming is irrelevant to the point I was making.
All I was saying was that a regular retest would not be an impractical arrangement.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

dvenman said:

The only way to get people to take any sort of periodic review of their driving is through lower insurance premiums, IMO. That way there's a tangible benefit to it. You're right that no government would mandate periodic reviews but they can encourage insurance companies to look at the statistics for those with some sort of CPD and see if they're generally safer.

It's the government that mandated driving tests in the first place. Private pilots have to have reviews so what's the difference?

Numbers for a start.

Would you welcome the restrictions being placed on all drivers that pilots have for their licencing & use of vehicle ?
There's more freedom on the roads than in the air.

Restriction in the sense of being retested every year or two yes, that's what I said.

Come to think of it having to take written tests that might take a modicum of intelligence to pass would be a great idea.

That's only a small amount of the restrictions on being a pilot & the movement of aircraft.
I'd rather any money available be spent of all number of things than retesting 40 million drivers.
That would be waste of money IMHO.

But the only 'restriction' I was talking about was the retest regime, I wasn't suggesting compulsory 50 hour checks medicals etc. so the cost of refurbishing a lycoming is irrelevant to the point I was making.
All I was saying was that a regular retest would not be an impractical arrangement.

And it would be a waste of money is what I'm saying.
Tell me, do you drive like you would if you were on a driving test all the time?
Another test won't make people drive like they should all the time, they'll drive like they need to in order to pass the test (that they've already shown they can if the choose to) & then go back to doing what they want to do. And you'd probably do the same.
You'd be better off investing that money in having a points system to get people who don't drive as they should off the roads for a period of time.
Oh hang on...

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

And it would be a waste of money is what I'm saying.
Tell me, do you drive like you would if you were on a driving test all the time?
Another test won't make people drive like they should all the time, they'll drive like they need to in order to past the test & then go back to doing what they want to do. And you'd probably do the same.
You are better off having a points system to get people who don't drive as they should be off the roads for a period of time.
Oh hang on...

A few months back I was on a refresher lesson, 2 riders with 1 instructor (not an 'observer' he actually was an instructor with the police). He picked up on the fact that in particular situation my positioning put me unnecessarily close to one of the hazards. He also spotted that the other rider had made an overtake where someone could possibly have entered the road from the right.

We weren't making those mistakes because we 'wanted do', we were just getting it wrong. As a result of that feedback we've both improved our riding. The idea that we wanted to reduce safety margins and would seize the opportunity to do so once out of sight of the instructor is absurd.

It isn't possible to pass a test just by putting on an act for the examiner, if it was there would be no point in any driving test, you have to know how to drive to that standard in the first place, and practice. In the case of post L test driving, as I'm quite sure you know examiners can tell the difference between someone who drives carefully by default and someone who knows the theory but normally gets sloppy, the latter can't maintain the standard consistently for 40 minutes.

PS Yes I generally do drive pretty much like I'm on a driving test (with the occasional exception of speed in some NSLs) and I definitely do when I've got a ROSPA retest or similar coming up.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Saturday 3rd October 18:19