Austria reduces new driver deaths by 30%

[martin84]

R0G said:

Many think the word DUAL means TWO lanes and not TWO seperated carriageways

Then many are quite thick indeed.

[matthias73]

once said:

matthias73 said:

martin84 said:

Personally but we do have 3 lane dual carraigeway which instructors use. .

Sorry, what?

I need to do my geek thing here. Martin84 is right. A dual carriageway is a piece of road where the two sides of the road are physically separated by a crash barrier or something else. The "dual" bit refers to the two sides of the road - ie one going one way and the other going in t'other direction.

In America they call it a "divided highway", which is a bit easier to understand.

So a dual carriageway can have 1, 2, 3 or more lanes in each direction. In highway engineering parlance, a two lane dual carriageway is a dual 2, a three lane dual carriageway is a dual 3, and so on. A standard piece of motorway is a dual 3.

Some people think that a dual carriageway is any road with two lanes going in each direction. It often is, but it doesn't have to be.

A single carriageway is a road without a central reservation. A single carriageway can have two lanes in one direction - eg up a hill where you have a crawler lane and an overtaking lane. But it's still a single carriageway and the NSL is 60 and not 70.

If you don't believe me, take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway

I stand corrected, thank you.

[mattmoxon]

Countdown said:

Agreed. Passing the driving test seems to be the high watermark of most people's driving capabilities.

Not sure how easy it would be to implement but I'd like to see different grades of license for different vehicles. Something like

Grade 1 = vehicle under 1000cc/60bhp
Grade 2 = vehicle under 1400cc/100bhp
Grade 10 = Unlimited cc / bhp

For men especially the "ego" element would encourage further training

That sort of thing is already restricted by insurance, no?

Plus would this mean that those of us who already have driving licences would have this retroactively imposed and to do the extra training? Which given the time period it takes to get through things like this, it would render many unable to drive cars they have owned and driven safely without incident for years until those additional tests are passed?

[DonkeyApple]

Countdown said:

Agreed. Passing the driving test seems to be the high watermark of most people's driving capabilities.

Not sure how easy it would be to implement but I'd like to see different grades of license for different vehicles. Something like

Grade 1 = vehicle under 1000cc/60bhp
Grade 2 = vehicle under 1400cc/100bhp
Grade 10 = Unlimited cc / bhp

For men especially the "ego" element would encourage further training

Agree completely.

Specific tests between each grade.

[once]

matthias73 said:

I stand corrected, thank you.

No worries. It's not very well explained anywhere. I reckon that more than 95% of drivers think that it's the number of lanes that makes it a dual carriageway.

[simoid]

mattmoxon said:

That sort of thing is already restricted by insurance, no?

Rich, young idiots in cars are still young idiots in cars

[matthias73]

DonkeyApple said:

Countdown said:

Agreed. Passing the driving test seems to be the high watermark of most people's driving capabilities.

Not sure how easy it would be to implement but I'd like to see different grades of license for different vehicles. Something like

Grade 1 = vehicle under 1000cc/60bhp
Grade 2 = vehicle under 1400cc/100bhp
Grade 10 = Unlimited cc / bhp

For men especially the "ego" element would encourage further training

Agree completely.

Specific tests between each grade.

That is fine in theory, but in real life it would be costly and time consuming, to the point it would price people out of the market further.

I started driving the family car when I passed my test, and then inherited it when my mum became one of those weirdos on a bike. Its 1800CC, 115hp. That would mean 3 grades until I could drive a very normal car.

Basically what we would need are black boxes, if we want to be fair to people. I'm totally against that in principle, but they would certainly be good for reducing accidents and giving good drivers discount.

[wst]

I would like to be a grade 10 instructor... got to instruct with something comparable to what the license allows!

That'll be an Aventador then...

[matthias73]

martin84 said:

R0G said:

Many think the word DUAL means TWO lanes and not TWO seperated carriageways

Then many are quite thick indeed.

I speak three languages but didn't know that. I guess I'm thick

[DonkeyApple]

matthias73 said:

That is fine in theory, but in real life it would be costly and time consuming, to the point it would price people out of the market further.

I started driving the family car when I passed my test, and then inherited it when my mum became one of those weirdos on a bike. Its 1800CC, 115hp. That would mean 3 grades until I could drive a very normal car.

Basically what we would need are black boxes, if we want to be fair to people. I'm totally against that in principle, but they would certainly be good for reducing accidents and giving good drivers discount.

Not sure it would be costly. The current test would give you a license to drive a very low powered car.

Beyond that level it is pure personal choice to invest in being able to drive something more powerful.

Aren't their stages of bike license nowadays?

Most people would never bother taking the next stage

[R0G]

matthias73 said:

martin84 said:

R0G said:

Many think the word DUAL means TWO lanes and not TWO seperated carriageways

Then many are quite thick indeed.

I speak three languages but didn't know that. I guess I'm thick

Well we all learn - unless we are dead !!

Now you can do a legal 70 on a NSL single lane DUAL

[matthias73]

DonkeyApple said:

matthias73 said:

That is fine in theory, but in real life it would be costly and time consuming, to the point it would price people out of the market further.

I started driving the family car when I passed my test, and then inherited it when my mum became one of those weirdos on a bike. Its 1800CC, 115hp. That would mean 3 grades until I could drive a very normal car.

Basically what we would need are black boxes, if we want to be fair to people. I'm totally against that in principle, but they would certainly be good for reducing accidents and giving good drivers discount.

Not sure it would be costly. The current test would give you a license to drive a very low powered car.

Beyond that level it is pure personal choice to invest in being able to drive something more powerful.

Aren't their stages of bike license nowadays?

Most people would never bother taking the next stage

Well, for me it would be costly. 60hp is sod all, in the type of car I need. Maybe you should think of a system where you have a power reducing/speed and acceleration restricting device until you pass the next stage, so families dont have to buy an extra car so their kids or family members can drive it.

Eg, I pass my test at 17, mum's car gets a box on the ECU ensuring 0-60 is approx 14 seconds and top speed 75.

Then, I do the next stage a year later, removing the box, or if its a sportscar, limiting it but not so much.

[matthias73]

R0G said:

matthias73 said:

martin84 said:

R0G said:

Many think the word DUAL means TWO lanes and not TWO seperated carriageways

Then many are quite thick indeed.

I speak three languages but didn't know that. I guess I'm thick

Well we all learn - unless we are dead !!

Now you can do a legal 70 on a NSL single lane DUAL

I was aware that if barrier seperating road, it

Ah forget it, I'm going to get a beer

[R0G]

The simplest method would be to set up an approved network of SAFE DRIVING OBSERVERS/ASSESSORS who would determine if the driver was driving in a safe manner and if found not to be then that driver would be 'passed back' to an ADI for the ADI to determine what extra training is required

The new safe driving team would have limited overheads as they would be doing those assessments in the drivers car so that way the cost would be kept low

Those are just rough ideas I had in a couple of minutes ....

[otolith]

DonkeyApple said:

Countdown said:

Agreed. Passing the driving test seems to be the high watermark of most people's driving capabilities.

Not sure how easy it would be to implement but I'd like to see different grades of license for different vehicles. Something like

Grade 1 = vehicle under 1000cc/60bhp
Grade 2 = vehicle under 1400cc/100bhp
Grade 10 = Unlimited cc / bhp

For men especially the "ego" element would encourage further training

Agree completely.

Specific tests between each grade.

What is it that you think is important to know in order to drive a quick car safely but which one need not know in order to drive a slow one?

[DonkeyApple]

matthias73 said:

Well, for me it would be costly. 60hp is sod all, in the type of car I need. Maybe you should think of a system where you have a power reducing/speed and acceleration restricting device until you pass the next stage, so families dont have to buy an extra car so their kids or family members can drive it.

Eg, I pass my test at 17, mum's car gets a box on the ECU ensuring 0-60 is approx 14 seconds and top speed 75.

Then, I do the next stage a year later, removing the box, or if its a sportscar, limiting it but not so much.

That would be simple enough but has other issues.

Firstly more open to fraud than suping up a small sealed unit engine.

Secondly, it doesn't escape the problem of crashing an expensive car.

60 bhp is more than enough. Ok cars were lighter 20 years ago but 60 in a modern car will still got a ton.

The other problem with what is a logical black box approach is that it is a step to total state control in reality.

Such a law would see manufacturers building very suitable, safe and practical cara for that end of the market.

Plus, 60bhp in a Caterham is still going to be awesome

[matthias73]

DonkeyApple said:

That would be simple enough but has other issues.

Firstly more open to fraud than suping up a small sealed unit engine.

Secondly, it doesn't escape the problem of crashing an expensive car.

60 bhp is more than enough. Ok cars were lighter 20 years ago but 60 in a modern car will still got a ton.

The other problem with what is a logical black box approach is that it is a step to total state control in reality.

Such a law would see manufacturers building very suitable, safe and practical cara for that end of the market.

Plus, 60bhp in a Caterham is still going to be awesome

I think you are wrong on all acounts, and I think the system should be left alone, maybe with the whole fraudster thing getting taken care of regarding insurance.

However if you ever come to power, I'm buying a caterham with 60hp.

[7mike]

R0G said:

The simplest method would be to set up an approved network of SAFE DRIVING OBSERVERS/ASSESSORS who would determine if the driver was driving in a safe manner and if found not to be then that driver would be 'passed back' to an ADI for the ADI to determine what extra training is required

The new safe driving team would have limited overheads as they would be doing those assessments in the drivers car so that way the cost would be kept low

Those are just rough ideas I had in a couple of minutes ....

Presumably, this network of approved assessors would all be willing to work free of charge?
Or are you also proposing a change in the law?

[DonkeyApple]

otolith said:

What is it that you think is important to know in order to drive a quick car safely but which one need not know in order to drive a slow one?

It's not really about knowing. It's about placing proven (if this is the case) high risk groups into vehicles which are cheaper to repair and are capable of less damage.

Add to that that it is a given that most lads when they pass will, regardless, spend a period afterwards 'hooning'. You are never going to stop this. It is just a given, so let them hoon in something relatively sluggish etc.

There is also plenty of real life experience and knowledge to be learnt in that period.

If kids can't afford insurance because the data suggests they crash a lot and these crashes are expensive then making it cheaper to crash is a logical step while also reducing the number of crashes.

If there is no data then the insurance companies are defrauding people.

[DonkeyApple]

matthias73 said:

I think you are wrong on all acounts, and I think the system should be left alone, maybe with the whole fraudster thing getting taken care of regarding insurance.

However if you ever come to power, I'm buying a caterham with 60hp.

I just think that building something that is dirt cheap to repair and run but makes the most of modern safety technology could be the solution to kids getting mobility at a fair price.

Hence my joke about the old NHS Reliant Robins.

Even if a kid buys an old banger the repair costs an damage it can do is the same as a new car so this doesn't really solve that aspect.

Likewise with restricting normal cars. Its still going to be a huge cost to fix.

I think we should accept that kids are going to crash and give them the option to buy something that is cheap, tough, easy to repair and safe. Polycarbonate panels etc. easy to personalise etc and maybe easy to work on, which is another huge failing for kids in modern cars.