Forget speeders......Time to start penalising slow drivers ???

First topic message reminder :

Coming home from work the other day.......I was stuck as everybody else was (15 car tailback) by some chick doing 22 mph in a 30 zone..(Think it was a chick it usually is!!)...30 Isn't fast for heaven sake surely you can keep up with that.........Next thing a car pulls out four back from her and tries to overtake the lot luckily the 2nd car behind her made some space to avoid a head-on......My adrenalin was pumping let alone how there's must have been....

I do 38 It's dangerous and I get points and a fine.......She does 22 has everybody behind her getting angry and making some do stupid things...Apparently It's not....Time for police to pull over stragglers and say ante up or get..........

In my old age I've become less patient and at the moment when someone holds me up at night doing a stupid speed I tend to put my main beam on so they get the message!!

Am I a knob or do I have a point ??..................Or both !!  

Time to start penalising slow drivers..........In my opinion

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Good luck, pal.

Heartwarming to see some employers are not put off by obesity.

As a chief executive in the city, Tino, if you had the choice between a fatty or a regularly proportioned person, who would you hire if they were of equal ability. A walking heart attack, or someone who won't eat all the birthday biscuits. Assuming they are of equal ability of course.

I am not a chief executive, but its an interesting scenario. Are they male or female?

No car blocks the whole lane, unless it's a hummer on a country road. You want to get passed, cycle passed in the couple of feet gap either side.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:What 'crimes' then LJ?

List some off and I'll have a look out for them.

Well for a start, look at the number of car drivers prosecuted for driving without a license or insurance. Thousands. Not one cyclist was prosecuted last year for these offences.

Pahaha at least you're debating with good humour now!!

Would LOVE to see compulsory licencing and insurance of cyclists.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:What 'crimes' then LJ?

List some off and I'll have a look out for them.

Well for a start, look at the number of car drivers prosecuted for driving without a license or insurance. Thousands. Not one cyclist was prosecuted last year for these offences.

Pahaha at least you're debating with good humour now!!

Would LOVE to see compulsory licencing and insurance of cyclists.

Would love to see compulsary nudging of cyclists off the road...but only those a-holes who cut you up, give you the fingers or generally ride as if the continued survival of the planet is dependant solely upon them...self righteous pr!cks

Spoiler:

Made me laugh.

My friend (a committed cyclist) sent it to me hoping for an outpouring of sympathy. Wasn't happy when I pointed out it was the cyclist in the wrong and that caused the trouble - deserving the slap he got!

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Good luck, pal.

Heartwarming to see some employers are not put off by obesity.

As a chief executive in the city, Tino, if you had the choice between a fatty or a regularly proportioned person, who would you hire if they were of equal ability. A walking heart attack, or someone who won't eat all the birthday biscuits. Assuming they are of equal ability of course.

I am not a chief executive, but its an interesting scenario.  Are they male or female?

Well if they are female it's a no brainer. Hire the attractive, if nothing else you'll have something to stare at.

Let's assume they are both men. One is fat, one is normal.

I jut don't see any reason why you'd hire the chubby one. Their fat sausage fingers would annoy you all day long.

Simple fact is the situation would never occur as you'd never find two identical candidates.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Simple fact is the situation would never occur as you'd never find two identical candidates.

Of course you can.

No, you can't.

No two people in life are identical (not even identical twins). No two people will bring exactly the same skill-set, contacts, biz-dev abilities etc to the same job.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Good luck, pal.

Heartwarming to see some employers are not put off by obesity.

As a chief executive in the city, Tino, if you had the choice between a fatty or a regularly proportioned person, who would you hire if they were of equal ability. A walking heart attack, or someone who won't eat all the birthday biscuits. Assuming they are of equal ability of course.

I am not a chief executive, but its an interesting scenario.  Are they male or female?

Well if they are female it's a no brainer. Hire the attractive, if nothing else you'll have something to stare at.

Let's assume they are both men. One is fat, one is normal.

I jut don't see any reason why you'd hire the chubby one. Their fat sausage fingers would annoy you all day long.

Their sausage fingers would annoy me but so do the people in the office who go for a run at lunchtime and sneer at me whilst I eat my Taxi bar.

it's difficult because you know the fat guy is probably going to get a heart attack, or something - but you just know LJ is eventually going to get clipped by a truck one day.

Or a BMW driven by TopHat.

Galted wrote:Or a BMW driven by TopHat.

Will aim for him this weekend while I'm up in the North East......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Galted wrote:Or a BMW driven by TopHat.

Will aim for him this weekend while I'm up in the North East......

He will be the one mincing along with a labradoodle in tow.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Galted wrote:Or a BMW driven by TopHat.

Will aim for him this weekend while I'm up in the North East......

He will be the one mincing along with a labradoodle in tow.

She's a staffie actually. Bit old to be running now though. Anyway, I'll be with all my Lycra clad mates looking very cool indeed.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Good luck, pal.

Heartwarming to see some employers are not put off by obesity.

As a chief executive in the city, Tino, if you had the choice between a fatty or a regularly proportioned person, who would you hire if they were of equal ability. A walking heart attack, or someone who won't eat all the birthday biscuits. Assuming they are of equal ability of course.

I am not a chief executive, but its an interesting scenario.  Are they male or female?

Well if they are female it's a no brainer. Hire the attractive, if nothing else you'll have something to stare at.

Let's assume they are both men. One is fat, one is normal.

I jut don't see any reason why you'd hire the chubby one. Their fat sausage fingers would annoy you all day long.

Their sausage fingers would annoy me but so do the people in the office who go for a run at lunchtime and sneer at me whilst I eat my Taxi bar.

A taxi bar... Get a real chocolate bar.

TopHat24/7 wrote:No, you can't.

No two people in life are identical (not even identical twins).  No two people will bring exactly the same skill-set, contacts, biz-dev abilities etc to the same job.

I interview 2 people last week who had exactly the same skill sets. I suggesting hiring the attractive female.

Sadly my advice was ignored by the female hating HR rep. So we are stuck with a slightly podgy bloke, who has very questionable banter, and smells kind of fusty.

You've got a new job haven't you, Toppy?

If you couldn't differentiate them then that says more about your interviewing....

Yep, new job for me, 5 minutes round the corner so keeping the same commute which is nice. Another big company with strong brand that'll look good on the CV, promotion and better pay and more focus on the best bits of what I'm doing already.

So, pretty happy

Surely If it's obvious she hates females and the best candidates don't get the job.........Then she isn't doing her job properly ?? So why employ her ?

I'd have thought for a guy with three helicopters, three cruise ships and a fleet of rolls royces you'd be more professional..........

TopHat24/7 wrote:If you couldn't differentiate them then that says more about your interviewing....

Yep, new job for me, 5 minutes round the corner so keeping the same commute which is nice. Another big company with strong brand that'll look good on the CV, promotion and better pay and more focus on the best bits of what I'm doing already.

So, pretty happy

I could differentiate. I wanted the attractive female. Less likely to be off sick. Although thinking about it she could have a year long maternity. So maybe the right decision was to hire the man after all. Women tend to make a meal of things when it comes to illness.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely If it's obvious she hates females and the best candidates don't get the job.........Then she isn't doing her job properly ?? So why employ her ?

I'd have thought for a guy with three helicopters, three cruise ships and a fleet of rolls royces you'd be more professional..........

These things are naturally engrained in the human brain. Women see attractive women as a threat. Men see attractive men as a threat.

I'm not saying people do it deliberately, but it certainly does happen.

A Rolls Royce doesn't agree with my views on environmental pollution. I'm a caring individual and like to look after the planet as much as I can.

Her job specification is to do what's in the Company's best interests..

Don't take your eye off the ball my friend...

Hate to see such a nice guy lose everything....After all a company is only as good as the people it employs....

No wonder Toppy is going.......

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:What about methods of transport that cannot do that speed. Not everyone wants to drive a earth polluting metal cage all the time.

Cycles, horses, agricultural vehicles etc... All can't do the speed limit. People need to be patient.

I quite like my earth polluting metal cage, actually, Jack.   I can get from A to B sitting in the warm and dry.  I can have Stevie Ray Vaughan on the stereo without compromising mine or other road users safety and I can even, say, put my lights on if it's getting dark or flick the wipers on if it's starting to rain without losing my concentration on what's going on around me.

Contrast this with the IPod zombie, riding without a helmet, with no lights on his bike, wearing a dark coloured track suit around dusk, who ignores traffic lights and turns right without signalling.

I'm not stereotyping here.  Of course, not all cyclists are like that.  But unfortunately, there are far too many who fit the above description to a T.

There was a schoolgirl who did a paper round not too far from where I live a couple of years ago. She fitted the above description.  She's in a wheelchair for life, now.  No prizes for guessing what happened to her.

Fortunately, in my town, the council have made good provision for cyclists.... plenty of cycle lanes.... which is good.  Most cyclists use them and there is good safety with minimal disruption to traffic flow.  All good.  Perhaps that should be the norm around the country.  

What are things like, in that regard, where you are..?

I've never seen a cyclist wearing headphones. Don't doubt it happens but it must be pretty infrequent.

An important consideration with cycling is the damage that is done if one makes a mistake. A cyclist hits a car an it's a scratch. A car hits a cyclist and it's broken bones or worse. The problem with idiotic drivers with thuggish attitudes like Toppy is that most of them can't really drive. I've lost count of the number of times a car has tried to overtake me round a corner/roundabout/traffic island/parked cars etc... Clueless.

Really...?   You've never seen a cyclist wearing headphones...?   Well, I don't see them wearing the big "cans", but the small earpieces that hook around the ear or similar are quite frequently worn by cyclists down this end of the country. 

You're quite right about the comparative damage re: driver / cyclist impact, as evidenced by the incident where the paper girl became a motorists bonnet mascot for as long as it took her to bounce back off and into the road.  Apparently, the driver didn't suffer a scratch, although I wouldn't be surprised if a windscreen wiper may have gotten a bit bent or something like that.

I will unashamedly say that I am a motorist, and I like motoring.  I too get irritated though, by drivers who are too lazy to flick an indicator switch and signal before they turn right, or go onto a roundabout.  I don't flash lights or wave my fist at them, but rather, tut quietly to myself and get on with it.  

Signalling doesn't take a lot of effort, does it..? But how many are too inconsiderate to do it, or are simply too lazy to bother..?   The answer is:  Too many.   And the individuals who break the rules themselves are usually the first to howl with indignation about others

But failing to signal is not exclusive to motorists.  Cyclists are terrible in that regard too, in my experience.

There is a lot of selfishness around when it comes to using the roads.  There are always road users who really... really.... think the road belongs to them, that the other guy is telepathic and knows what Mr I-own-the-road is going to do next, and that anyone who doesn't drive to his total satisfaction whilst completely ignoring the failings he demonstrates all too frequently, is a menace who should be locked in the boot of his car and have it pushed over Beachy Head when the tide is in.

Many millions of people use the roads with reasonable consideration, but with occasional variations that usually happen for a reason that may not be apparent to all at the time. Drivers are like fingerprints.  No two are the same, and everybody does something to annoy other road users at some time.

The short answer is:  Learn to tolerate it.  Live and let live.  I do.

Non-signallers are definitely a pet peeve of mine, along with those that don't check their mirrors!!

Can be quite satisfying to drive at the speed limit when driver behind is desperate to speed.  Not talking about middle lane hogging on motorway and the like but where limit is 30 or 40 mph.  

I definitely agree that something should be done about this, however, in principle it would be very difficult to write into law for their are so many exceptions.

I live in the countryside where many tractors, combine harvesters etc need to use the road and are slow on it. Yes it's an inconvenience but it's also a necessity for them. Also bear in mind cyclists. It just isn't possible to say that road user x can go at a 10mph for example but road user y, stuck behind x, is breaking the law.

It is a hazard, however. If you have a blind dip or bend and there is a driver (not where you expect agricultural vehicles) driving slowly, then this poses a significant danger. Similarly if you drive at 30mph on the motorway you can't build up enough speed to overtake or slow down to accelerate past.

It should be noted though that typically it is the older generation that is culpable of driving too slowly. In addition, you should be cautious of agricultural vehicles where they are expected.

I think 2 actions are required to cut the problem.

i) Impose from dual-carriageways to motorways a minimum speed limit of 50mph in free-flowing traffic.

This should increase the flow on the essential road arteries and help prevent possible pile ups. Note this shouldn't be undertaken by speed cameras - tickets should be given by police officers. I would make this a fixed £60 fine, no points, for someone driving at 45mph in the left hand lane at 2o'clock, no traffic.

ii) Driver safety checks (15 minute drive - 30 [out of standard 50] theory q's and full reaction test) for those over 60 - every 3 years until 70 - and every 18 months after, plus approval from a GP.

This might seem harsh but I think it is essential. Every road drover should be at the standard where they can pass the current test and demonstrate competence in their driving. Driving too slowly can put others at risk.

Don't think your first will make any difference. Sub-50 mph drivers are extremely rare on Dual Carriageways and M'ways.

Personally I'd set a minimum speed of 65mph for the outer lane(s), therefore restricted vehicles cannot move out of the slow/first lane but everyone else that wants to drive in the main lane(s) has to drive at an acceptable speed.

Like your second in principal, though I'd do it differently. For a start I'd make it 65 (linked to State pension age, and maybe even to collection of said pension (e.g. pass the test or surrender your licence) and I'd only require renewal every 10 years. Would also make the testing a 'lightweight' version of what new drivers have to do - experience should count for something, the two situations are different, IMO, and therefore should be treated as such.

I would support better scrutiny of very elderly drivers to ensure their eyesight and reactions are OK.

I think minimum speed limits are fraught with difficulty as the condition of the road varies so much. Patch of fog 20 mins ago.  One person might assume all clear now and another might want to be cautious for longer...

I think the only way that minimum speeds could be enforced would be by a police officer with photographic evidence. TBH overall I doubt it would work or be that effective but to have something down in law might be a deterrent.

Secondly, I agree with the state pension age. But I think we have to be strict. You should be able to reverse park/turn in the road (shows your spacial awareness and ability to use mirrors) and drive at least on a dual carriageway. Also, if you are experienced then a set of reduced theory q's should be a doddle. Most importantly though, the reaction element is vital.

Have a go and say what you got for your score:

I got 5/5 in clip 1. You click on the clip when you see a hazard. You can click multiple times but not excessively or too much in one period.

http://www.theaa.com/aattitude/games/hpt.jsp

Tbh, I have sympathy for the oldies because that test was bloody confusing. I didn't click anything, out of interest, and got 0/5 (obvs) but the only hazard it said I 'missed' was the cyclist.

Equally, what constitutes a 'hazard', could easily have found a dozen things to click on.

Having done so I got 5 out of 5 - but still don't know which it was constituting a hazard.

Just re-sat the test, only clicking once (for the cyclist) and also got 5/5.

Ergo, the test is Love sacks.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tbh, I have sympathy for the oldies because that test was bloody confusing.  I didn't click anything, out of interest, and got 0/5 (obvs) but the only hazard it said I 'missed' was the cyclist.

Equally, what constitutes a 'hazard', could easily have found a dozen things to click on.

Having done so I got 5 out of 5 - but still don't know which it was constituting a hazard.

Just re-sat the test, only clicking once (for the cyclist) and also got 5/5.

Ergo, the test is Love sacks.

A hazard is something that can pose a danger and may require a deviation to your driving. For instance, a pedestrian at traffic lights or a car about to turn into your lane. What you should be scanning for when driving in order to be prepared to take action for.

It is confusing at first but should show your reaction times. Some clips involve a child on a pavement who runs in front of a car without looking (they are fine btw). You have to click basically when they start to move off the pavement. If you click too late, i.e. when they are on the road, your reactions are too slow.

You get marked from 1-5.

But how do you get marked 1 to 5?

I took three different approaches and only got 0 out of 5 or 5 out of 5.

The test is nonsense.

TopHat24/7 wrote:But how do you get marked 1 to 5?

I took three different approaches and only got 0 out of 5 or 5 out of 5.

The test is nonsense.

Not sure about the AA one but the official test ranks you on speed from 1 being slow to 5 being quick.

Must be just a fault with the AA one then.

Will have one last try clicking slowly for the biker....

So it does......3/5 when I wait a long time to click.

Can't be bothered checking, but having a feeling clicking repeatedly might let you cheat the test a bit.

On the official one you can't cheat like that and the difference between 5 and fail is under 2 seconds most times.

Either way I think it's a fair point.

Hazard perception/awareness and reaction time are two hugely important factors for modern road driving and ones that elderly drivers are most likely to deteriorate in.

Still wouldn't test more regularly than 5 years though.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Either way I think it's a fair point.

Hazard perception/awareness and reaction time are two hugely important factors for modern road driving and ones that elderly drivers are most likely to deteriorate in.

Still wouldn't test more regularly than 5 years though.

Shouldn't this be posted in the boxing section?

Dickface

Wasn't me who posted it on the wrong section...tw@tbonce

When your guests on one of my threads...

A little more decorum would be jolly nice..ok yah ??

It was in tribute to your general oafishness, take it as a compliment.

I will

   

Calm it...