# Don't prosecute older drivers who run red lights



## Drago (3 Dec 2021)

Personally I think anyone who can't do something as simple as observe a red light shouldn't be on the road regardless of their age, but it seems some people think otherwise...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/01/olde...-prosecution-for-running-red-lights-15696760/

What else could people escape prosecution for simply because they're knocking on a bit? Shoplifting? Arson? Dangerous road behaviour with the potential to injure or kill innocent people?

And im not keen on the wording either. People don't _accidentally_ run red lights - they negligently run them. Doing something accidentally suggests a human frailty or weakness is at play, a kind of force majeure, something beyond the control of the subject, rather than an inability to take responsibility for their own actions.

Clearly the behaviour of all drivers, including older ones, affects us as vulnerable users and im not happy with the prospect. One can only hope that no one in government listens.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Dec 2021)

The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.

The proposal appears to be that folks will get their abilities looked at - will surely give them a jolt - may end with them being taken off the road - safer for the rest of us than a fine which may be pocket money to some.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Dec 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.



Nothing wrong with a bit of topspin, but it's rather worrying a trained investigator has fallen for it.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

I'm in favour of getting dangerous, incompetent drivers off the road by whatever means, no matter what age they are. This idea does appear to support that, in a round about way, but only for drivers over 70. 
The rest of them, we have to wait until they are actually CAUGHT running a red light 4 times so that they gather enough points for a ban. Even then they seem to be able to BS their way to avoiding a ban, or carry on driving regardless, given that the chances of getting caught are so slim.


----------



## DCBassman (3 Dec 2021)

Personally, I'd want more red light cameras to catch more RLJs and make it a minimum 1year ban...


----------



## Drago (3 Dec 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> The story isn't quite what some of the headlines might suggest though is it ? - old tabloid trick of a shocking/attention grabbing headline followed by the full story/proper story down below - often a long long way down below.
> 
> The proposal appears to be that folks will get their abilities looked at - will surely give them a jolt - may end with them being taken off the road - safer for the rest of us than a fine which may be pocket money to some.


Why should they be given that benefit, when younger drivers would be penalised instead? If its such a great casualty reduction idea then why is it not being universally suggested?

Where is the evidence that it may give them a jolt and thus improve future driving?

Age is no defence to any inadequacy at an activity that had the potential to kill. If someone simply isn't up to the job due to age then thats a medical issue of awareness and acuity, and a jolt won't help that - if youre unable to drive without making safety critical errors, for whatever reason, then you shouldn't be driving. There is no middle way.



DCBassman said:


> Personally, I'd want more red light cameras to catch more RLJs and make it a minimum 1year ban...



I like this! I think the starting point for all offences should be a 28 day ban, and none of this hardship bollards. If you're needing your car for something critical then its up to you to not abuse the privelege, not up to the courts and socitymto accommodate your offending.


----------



## dave r (3 Dec 2021)

Having recently renewed my license, I'm 70 in a couple of weeks, I had to self certify that I was still fit to drive, it will be the same in 3 years time when I renew again, renewing your licence at seventy and beyond should include an eyesight test and a medical, it shouldn't be up to the driver or their family or friends to turn round and say maybe its time to hang up your car keys.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Nothing wrong with a bit of topspin, but it's rather worrying a trained investigator has fallen for it.


you may call it "topspin", I call it downright distortion/game playing. I've been around long enough to know about it though. So I very often used to read the tabloid headlines and then skip to the bottom and start reading up from there. Very often the real story was right right at the bottom, maybe in the penultimate para - at which point I could just throw it back on the tube seat I'd picked the trash up from. Save myself the bother of reading the vast swathes in the middle.
Of course many readers wouldn't get as far as the bottom, or would even miss the rather subtle bit which basically told you that the entire story was crap/a waste of toilet time.
The bit at the bottom is of course the tabloid journo's defence - "well I did give you facts".
Well yes but not in a meaningful way, one that suited me rather than the rag.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Dec 2021)

Drago said:


> Personally I think anyone who can't do something as simple as observe a red light shouldn't be on the road regardless of their age, but it seems some people think otherwise...
> 
> https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/01/olde...-prosecution-for-running-red-lights-15696760/
> 
> ...



See these bits Drago:

1: 
"Motorists aged 70 and above who are caught accidentally running a red light or unnecessarily slow driving should have their skills assessed instead, they said, rather than facing hefty fines or even prosecution."

and on the skills assessment:


2:

"When someone is found to be unsafe behind the wheel, a report is sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which decides whether to revoke their licence."

If I was an elderly red light runner and wanted to keep cruising the roads, if comfortably off I think I'd rather bung a quick payment/bribe in the post no questions asked than face someone checking me out.


----------



## Lozz360 (3 Dec 2021)

Drago said:


> Why should they be given that benefit, when younger drivers would be penalised instead? If its such a great casualty reduction idea then why is it not being universally suggested?
> 
> Where is the evidence that it may give them a jolt and thus improve future driving?


It is hardly a benefit to have your driving abilities assessed with the possible outcome of having your license revoked.

Blue Hills has already made the point that it is wise to actually read the article rather than posting an opinion based on just the attention grabbing headline.

To summarise the article, RLJ’s under the age of 70 are likely to face a £100 fine and three points on their license. The idea is that this will be enough of a deterrent to prevent a repeat offence. Whereas a RLJ over 70 will have their driving abilities assessed and if it is deemed that they are not fit to drive, then their license will be removed. This makes sense, because if the reason for jumping the red light is due to, say, their mental faculties are slowing down, then no amount of fine or punishment is going to correct future behaviour.


----------



## fossyant (3 Dec 2021)

FIL was a liability in his later years - the amount of 'bills' we found from Chips away after his death was incredible - he was hiding the fact he kept 'bumping' the car.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Dec 2021)

Lozz360 said:


> It is hardly a benefit to have your driving abilities assessed with the possible outcome of having your license revoked.
> 
> Blue Hills has already made the point that it is wise to actually read the article rather than posting an opinion based on just the attention grabbing headline.
> 
> To summarise the article, RLJ’s under the age of 70 are likely to face a £100 fine and three points on their license. The idea is that this will be enough of a deterrent to prevent a repeat offence. Whereas a RLJ over 70 will have their driving abilities assessed and if it is deemed that they are not fit to drive, then their license will be removed. This makes sense, because if the reason for jumping the red light is due to, say, their mental faculties are slowing down, then no amount of fine or punishment is going to correct future behaviour.



This assumes the rljing of the older person is mental and that of the younger driver isn’t mental. If a younger driver jumps a red light clearly their mental faculties are not quite right.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Hang on, have I got this right? If you jumped a red light at age 70+ and elected to be assessed, and passed the assessment, you'd get off scot free?

Or am I being dumb and not (skim) reading the article properly?

This would in effect be saying "Yes, you knew exactly what you were doing and it was not an error bought on by decrepitude. You are free to go and do it again".

Surely the assessment should be _in addition to_ the fine/ban. OK if you fail the assessment and your licence is revoked then I can see it might be fair to waive the fine as you clearly aren't going to do it again, and you can't really suspend a licence that has been revoked.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

Two things here. Motoring offence having different penalties/no penalties for the specific offence based on age. Then there's the ability to drive safely and subsequent safety assessment. Those imho should happen every serious offence no matter what age.

You do not accidentally RLJ you make a conscious decision somewhere along the line That leads to the offence. Whether that's at the lights or getting into the car to drive it when you can't prevent yourself from RLJing. No matter when the decision was made it's conscious and should be actionable in the same way no matter what your age is.

Assessment of driving ability happens once in your driving career at the test. Many on the road have not been tested as strictly and thoroughly as new drivers have. Unless there's specific reasons you are unlikely to be forced into a second assessment of driving skills until it's too late due to age or other reason such as motoring offence, mental health or other. That is a big problem.

Self assessment for over 70s every 3 years is pathetic attempt at solving a relatively small issue of elderly drivers who should not be driving. It doesn't address people from 17 to 69.

Imho there should be regular, independent medical assessment for all drivers. There should also be skills and hazard perception assessments for all on regular basis. There should also be strict punishment for motoring offences for all drivers. No hardship or different outcomes for certain age groups. Universality for all.

Of course I'm less than 50yo and hold this view so biased? Or perhaps I'm not biased because I'm not at or near the age of 70. I just think driving is a privilege not right and as such you need to prove you're safe often! I also believe you should get and accept punishment when you commit an offence irrespective of personal details.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

A decision to drive was made leading to offence. Even if you get your licence taken you still made a decision leading to offence. Why should that decision escape a fine?


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> you may call it "topspin", I call it downright distortion/game playing. I've been around long enough to know about it though. So I very often used to read the tabloid headlines and then skip to the bottom and start reading up from there. Very often the real story was right right at the bottom, maybe in the penultimate para - at which point I could just throw it back on the tube seat I'd picked the trash up from. Save myself the bother of reading the vast swathes in the middle.
> Of course many readers wouldn't get as far as the bottom, or would even miss the rather subtle bit which basically told you that the entire story was crap/a waste of toilet time.
> The bit at the bottom is of course the tabloid journo's defence - "well I did give you facts".
> Well yes but not in a meaningful way, one that suited me rather than the rag.


Just the same as happens in political reporting.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> Just the same as happens in political reporting.


corporates do it as well of course.
I well remember press releases headlined with things like:

400 jobs saved.

read down and you find 600 have gone as part of the same triumph.


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Being 86 years old and still driving regularly I obviously have an interest in this.
I do not run red lights tho' I have seen other younger drivers do this so I see no need for discrimination. All should be treated the same regardless of age. 
There could be a case for medical checks but hard to say at what age as everyone is different. 
I have certainly known some people who were unfit to drive due to age degeneration but a medical would pick this out easily.


----------



## dave r (3 Dec 2021)

fossyant said:


> FIL was a liability in his later years - the amount of 'bills' we found from Chips away after his death was incredible - he was hiding the fact he kept 'bumping' the car.



An elderly friend of our was forced to stop driving by her family a couple of years ago, their driving standard had dropped away a lot and in the end the family said enough its time to stop.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Dec 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> you may call it "topspin", I call it downright distortion/game playing. I've been around long enough to know about it though. So I very often used to read the tabloid headlines and then skip to the bottom and start reading up from there. Very often the real story was right right at the bottom, maybe in the penultimate para - at which point I could just throw it back on the tube seat I'd picked the trash up from. Save myself the bother of reading the vast swathes in the middle.
> Of course many readers wouldn't get as far as the bottom, or would even miss the rather subtle bit which basically told you that the entire story was crap/a waste of toilet time.
> The bit at the bottom is of course the tabloid journo's defence - "well I did give you facts".
> Well yes but not in a meaningful way, one that suited me rather than the rag.



Steady one, the second par says older drivers should have their 'skills reassessed instead'.

Don't shoot the messenger - it's the task force that's come up with idea.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> This would in effect be saying "Yes, you knew exactly what you were doing and it was not an error bought on by decrepitude. You are free to go and do it again".


Ah, but... you would only qualify under this scheme if you "accidentally" went through a red light, whatever that means .



> Motorists aged 70 and above who are caught *accidentally* running a red light or unnecessarily slow driving should have their skills assessed instead, they said, rather than facing hefty fines or even prosecution


----------



## byegad (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> Being 86 years old and still driving regularly I obviously have an interest in this.
> I do not run red lights tho' I have seen other younger drivers do this so I see no need for discrimination. All should be treated the same regardless of age.
> There could be a case for medical checks but hard to say at what age as everyone is different.
> I have certainly known some people who were unfit to drive due to age degeneration but a medical would pick this out easily.



^^THIS^^. I'm 70 and know that it could be me who, soon has to give up my licence. 
At the moment I, and my wife, who will grab hold of the seat if anything looks amiss, agree I'm fine! However she had to give up her licence following a brain abscess operation and has been advised by her optician that she should not apply to regain it. It happens.


----------



## Alex321 (3 Dec 2021)

Drago said:


> Why should they be given that benefit, when younger drivers would be penalised instead? If its such a great casualty reduction idea then why is it not being universally suggested?


I think most drivers for a first offence will get the option of a course don't they?

Or is that only for speeding offences?



> I like this! I think the starting point for all offences should be a 28 day ban, and none of this hardship bollards. If you're needing your car for something critical then its up to you to not abuse the privelege, not up to the courts and socitymto accommodate your offending.



I do think the points system is fine, but there really shouldn't be any way to get out of a ban if you accumulate 12. People make mistakes, but having done so, and got points, there is no excuse for not learning from those mistakes.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Steady one, the second par says older drivers should have their 'skills reassessed instead'.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger - it's the task force that's come up with idea.


well yes this one wasn't as bad as many - and it is of course very common* - the info came relatively soon - the headline, which Drago spluttered his morning coffee over, is hyped though - though the journo can always blame that on someone else.

* little new in the world of course - now called clickbait I think.

I stress I'm not blaming/shooting the taskforce - their proposals may have merit.

(by the by I plead guilty to once amassing a fair few points very quickly and ending up in front of a court)


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

byegad said:


> ^^THIS^^. I'm 70 and know that it could be me who, soon has to give up my licence.
> At the moment I, and my wife, who will grab hold of the seat if anything looks amiss, agree I'm fine! However she had to give up her licence following a brain abscess operation and has been advised by her optician that she should not apply to regain it. It happens.


I should add that I know my limitations and will not drive anywhere which I regard as dangerous. 
St James Interchange on the M8 is one example because I am now unfamiliar with the area and could be a blamed for any incident due to old age. The volume and speed of traffic is something I and a lot of younger people here are not familiar with.
A nurse in her 40's admitted to me that she would not drive further than Dumbarton due to fear of traffic volume and speed.
I would however drive to Gartnavel Hospital in Glasgow because it is straightforward and an area I am familiar with but not to any other hospital in Glasgow even tho' in the past I have driven to all of them. Traffic and road layout has changed since then and local knowledge is really needed to be in the correct lane at the right time.
In the past also I drove commercial vans and I think got more leeway in an unfamiliar area.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> the headline, which Drago spluttered his morning coffee over, is hyped though - though the journo can always blame that on someone else.


I don't think it's hyped

The headline is *Older drivers ‘should escape prosecution for running red lights’*

It's in quotes, meaning someone said it ("The Older Drivers Task Force")
It is accurate, but omits "provided that they submit to a reassessment".

Can you come up with a snappy headline that isn't hyped?

How about "Reassessment proposed as alternative to prosecution for older traffic offenders"


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> Ah, but... you would only qualify under this scheme if you "accidentally" went through a red light, whatever that means .


I agree that slow drivers can be a hazard particularly on main A roads and they are a menace causing some to make unsafe overtaking decisions.
I once on the A85 had to wait for about 5 miles at 30mph to get an overtaking opportunity. Having finally got past and speeded up just before Taynuilt I was then pulled over in the village for a routine lights and tyres check. While this was happening the Ba----d got past and I was behind him the whole way into Oban.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> I agree that slow drivers can be a hazard particularly on main A roads and they are a menace causing some to make unsafe overtaking decisions.
> I once on the A85 had to wait for about 5 miles at 30mph to get an overtaking opportunity. Having finally got past and speeded up just before Taynuilt I was then pulled over in the village for a routine lights and tyres check. While this was happening the Ba----d got past and I was behind him the whole way into Oban.


I understand what you're saying, as I live on the Clyde coast and most days on the A78 either north or south of here you will find yourself in a 30mph traffic snake, despite the road being perfectly safe to get near the 60mph limit. But all it takes is one selfish nobber to be more interested in admiring the view than actually driving properly.
However, selfishness apart, they aren't CAUSING anyone to make unsafe overtaking decisions. That is purely down to the person doing the overtaking.
Personally I would like to see more prosecutions of the dawdling drivers under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, i.e. driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. But I know it will never happen, other than in extreme cases.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> Traffic and road layout has changed since then and local knowledge is really needed to be in the correct lane at the right time.


A crystal ball would also be helpful when driving in unfamiliar areas. My pet hate (ok, ok; another one) is the use of direction arrows painted on the road at roundabouts or traffic light junctions. No other signs giving guidance as to which lane leads where, until you are on top of them as they were covered by other traffic. By which time it's too late and no-one is going to let you change lanes. This is particularly entertaining when driving an artic, as I found out on a regular basis .


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Dec 2021)

Rather than wait for another 3 years to yank the license, beating the red light is now a trigger for an assessment and the possibility of yanking the license for good. Much earlier seems to be the suggestion. But it came out as giving the elderly a pass in view of their age.

Maybe better to fine them as well as trigger an assessment for those above 70.


----------



## swansonj (3 Dec 2021)

Seems to me some folk here are starting with the wrong set of underlying assumptions: an assumption of a right to able to drive at your chosen speed. Whereas roads are a shared public space and there are a gazillion reasons why a vehicle may be slower than your chosen speed. They may irritate you (though that would raise questions about the psychology of your driving) but there is no right of yours that is being infringed by a slower driver and no moral pressure on them to change their behaviour.


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> A crystal ball would also be helpful when driving in unfamiliar areas. My pet hate (ok, ok; another one) is the use of direction arrows painted on the road at roundabouts or traffic light junctions. No other signs giving guidance as to which lane leads where, until you are on top of them as they were covered by other traffic. By which time it's too late and no-one is going to let you change lanes. This is particularly entertaining when driving an artic, as I found out on a regular basis .


In Paisley they carefully hide all direction signs to the hospital behind bushes, trees or other signs.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

Fine them for the offence because they committed it then assess them quickly. There is no such thing as accidentally committing motoring offence because you are in control of the car making the decisions necessary to drive. It's always operator error except for rare circumstances. 

Take hitting black ice and skidding to illuminate this. Most modern vehicles give you air temps and warn you of I've risk. You're 17 years or older which is old enough to judge its a cold night with risk of ice. Then you chose to drive. Were you driving to account for potential ice? How are your tyres? Did you check them? And so on. Decisions you made as a driver prior to having n the "accident" of a skid. Might be unfortunate but a consequence of many decisions.

People who drive should always own their driving deci and accept any consequences.


----------



## swansonj (3 Dec 2021)

Surely that headline is entirely accurate and Drago did not miss the real story?

Prosecution/fine/points and driving assessment/withdrawal of licence are two different things. The former is dealing with a criminal offence. The latter is dealing with a licence to do a certain thing that is granted by the state and can be withdrawn by the state. We surely ought to do the latter (assess then withdraw the licence) much more often, for any age, when driving behaviour suggests it. But if we stop doing the former (criminal sanctions for criminal offences) we are sending a message that motoring law isn't really proper law.

It's not either/or, it should be both!


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> Seems to me some folk here are starting with the wrong set of underlying assumptions: an assumption of a right to able to drive at your chosen speed. Whereas roads are a shared public space and there are a gazillion reasons why a vehicle may be slower than your chosen speed. They may irritate you (though that would raise questions about the psychology of your driving) but there is no right of yours that is being infringed by a slower driver and no moral pressure on them to change their behaviour.


So 30mph on a 60mph limit main road and not pulling over for traffic behind is ok? I have seen various accidents reported over time where that was the main cause.
I have a timetable deadline to meet and should be able to maintain a reasonable speed on a main road.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

The only stretch of road that I know of that has a _minimum_ speed limit is A12 near the Southbound entrance into the Blackwall Tunnel which has a 10mph minimum sign - for no reason that I can fathom. (It's quasi-motorway so bikes, horses, lawnmowers etc aren't allowed)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5...4!1s8YbolSsh5NOTjDWwDcaAsg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Amusingly, this is often jammed, so often as not the traffic inches slowly through that zone at well under 10mph.


----------



## swansonj (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> So 30mph on a 60mph limit main road and not pulling over for traffic behind is ok? I have seen various accidents reported over time where that was the main cause.
> I have a timetable deadline to meet and should be able to maintain a reasonable speed on a main road.


No. The mindset that "I am a motorist and roads are provided to me so that I can proceed along them at my chosen speed" is just wrong, and cyclists of all people should be aware of that.

And, as others have pointed out, the cause of those accidents was not the slow driver, it was the faulty psychology of the following driver.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> They may irritate you (though that would raise questions about the psychology of your driving) but there is no right of yours that is being infringed by a slower driver and no moral pressure on them to change their behaviour.


No-one has any "right" to do anything on the road. It is all subject to the law, mostly under the Road Traffic Act. Which states that it is against the law to drive without reasonable consideration for other road users. Interpret that however you like, but it is generally accepted in the courts that anyone driving in a manner which falls short of the level of competence required to pass the DVSA driving test, can be held to be driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other road users.
If you go out and sit your driving test, and drive at 30 mph on a road with a 60 mph limit, and where it is clear and safe to drive near to that limit, you will fail your test! @gavroche ??


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> In Paisley they carefully hide all direction signs to the hospital behind bushes, trees or other signs.


Same everywhere. But it used to be the case that the roads dept. of the council actually employed teams of people to cut back trees and bushes and keep signs visible. That luxury is gone and won't be coming back, sadly.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> No. The mindset that "I am a motorist and roads are provided to me so that I can proceed along them at my chosen speed" is just wrong, and cyclists of all people should be aware of that.


I don't see anyone saying that. Obviously it is a requirement to drive in a manner suited to the traffic conditions. In a wide open "A" road, with a 60 mph limit, in good weather, clear visibility, no traffic in front, no obstructions, straight road ahead etc., why can a competent driver not manage to drive at something close to the limit? 
I see it time and again near here, that in such conditions they sit at 30/35 mph with a long snake of cars behind them. Oblivious, or just don't care?? I would suggest that THEY are the ones who need to look at the psychology of their driving. If they feel they can't cope with driving properly, perhaps they need to consider giving it up? As has frequently been stated on this forum, driving is a privilege with conditions attached, it is not a right.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

There's a certain issue with slow speeds though. Older people generally start to compensate for diminishing reaction times with slowing down. I'm not even 50 yo but recognise that with my driving.

If a vehicle is being driven significantly slower than others then holding someone up isn't the an issue but whether the significantly slow driver m is b safe to drive. I've seen cats drive at 30mph on the m6! It's amazing how quickly you catch up to a 30mph car when you're doing 65mph on the motorway. 

The cases I've seen were older people who I think should be subjected to assessment. There's simply no credible system for that. GPs simply do not want to refer people, there's no independent system.

In my family a GP did not report his patient who he diagnosed as having a stroke and who told my relative he shouldn't drive any more. It was actually a tumour the size of a grapefruit but that's another issue.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Dec 2021)

There's also a proposal to allow 'older drivers' to keep their driving licence as long as they stay near 'home', useful if you live in a villlage where the shops have been forced to close by supermarkets.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Time Waster said:


> I've seen cats drive at 30mph on the m6!


----------



## Alex321 (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> Seems to me some folk here are starting with the wrong set of underlying assumptions: an assumption of a right to able to drive at your chosen speed. Whereas roads are a shared public space and there are a gazillion reasons why a vehicle may be slower than your chosen speed. They may irritate you (though that would raise questions about the psychology of your driving) but there is no right of yours that is being infringed by a slower driver and no moral pressure on them to change their behaviour.


I'm afraid this is just false.

The law requires that you drive with consideration for others. Part of which means you should not unnecessarily hold others up. If you want to drive slower than most of the traffic, then you should pull over at reasonable intervals to allow those you are holding up past.

Section 3, Road Traffic Act 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/driving-offences


> *Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.*
> If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
> 
> *3ZAMeaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving*
> ...



People *have* been prosecuted for driving too slowly for the prevailing traffic.

And driving too slowly is listed on the cPS site under the heading of careless or inconsiderate driving
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences


> The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.
> 
> Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:
> 
> ...


(My bold)


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I'm afraid this is just false.
> 
> The law requires that you drive with consideration for others. Part of which means you should not unnecessarily hold others up. If you want to drive slower than most of the traffic, then you should pull over at reasonable intervals to allow those you are holding up past.
> 
> ...


People have been fined for not allowing faster vehicles to get past but not seen that for some time now. Living in an area of single track roads I am very aware of this.
I have seen people being pulled over by police but only given a verbal warning for this offence.
We got a new police sargeant here once who decreed that anyone harassing tourists to get past would be prosecuted.
This edict was quietly dropped after about a month as he had been the victim of slow inconsiderate drivers who would not let him past.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

A lot of posts but is this actually a real problem, rather than an occasional occurrence? While driving I don't remember ever being stuck behind a slow moving vehicle other than agricultural vehicles, heavy loads, horses or bicycles. And if I have, I'll have forgotten about it because I overtook them as soon as it was safe. 

I'm not denying that it does happen, from time to time. But is it actually a widespread problem worth bothering about - apart from the odd occasion when you finish your journey and have a quick swear about being stuck behind some idiot and then get on with your life?


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> A lot of posts but is this actually a real problem, rather than an occasional occurrence? While driving I don't remember ever being stuck behind a slow moving vehicle other than agricultural vehicles, heavy loads, horses or bicycles. And if I have, I'll have forgotten about it because I overtook them as soon as it was safe.
> 
> I'm not denying that it does happen, from time to time. But is it actually a widespread problem worth bothering about - apart from the odd occasion when you finish your journey and have a quick swear about being stuck behind some idiot and then get on with your life?


I suppose it depends where you drive. Locally, it IS a problem, but we attract a lot of visitors who as I previously posted, are more interested in admiring the views than driving their car. 
This is why I avoid cycling on these roads like the plague. I would much rather take a safe pass from a car moving at 60 mph driven by someone who knows what they are doing and is concentrating on their driving, rather than some duffer who is doing 35 mph while looking at the nice ship out on the river, then...... ooops; sorry cyclist! . They are clueless, selfish, and dangerous. IMHO, of course .


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

6 weeks after passing my driving test at 17 I went on a RoSPA advanced driving course. As a new driver and member of the road safety group my first m training drive was solo with the main instructor, an advanced techniques police driving instructor who n trains in police driving but also traffic training. I still remember him saying that if any manoeuvre you did as a driver resulted in another driver having to react by speeding up or slowing down then it's technically an offence. I try to bear that in mind when I'm driving.


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

Time Waster said:


> if any manoeuvre you did as a driver resulted in another driver having to react by speeding up or slowing down then it's technically an offence.


You can add to that, "or changing direction".....


----------



## Alex321 (3 Dec 2021)

Time Waster said:


> 6 weeks after passing my driving test at 17 I went on a RoSPA advanced driving course. As a new driver and member of the road safety group my first m training drive was solo with the main instructor, an advanced techniques police driving instructor who n trains in police driving but also traffic training. I still remember him saying that if any manoeuvre you did as a driver resulted in another driver having to react by speeding up or slowing down then it's technically an offence. I try to bear that in mind when I'm driving.


I don't believe that is *quite* correct though. If, for instance, you slow to 30mph as you enter a 30 limit, and the vehicle behind you then has to slow to 30mph as well, you are surely not committing an offence then. Nor are you committing an offence if you stop fopr a pedestrian at a zebra crossing and the car behind you has to slow as a result.

It is about *unnecessarily* causing inconvenience to others.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I don't believe that is *quite* correct though. If, for instance, you slow to 30mph as you enter a 30 limit, and the vehicle behind you then has to slow to 30mph as well, you are surely not committing an offence then. Nor are you committing an offence if you stop fopr a pedestrian at a zebra crossing and the car behind you has to slow as a result.
> 
> It is about *unnecessarily* causing inconvenience to others.


Beat me to it. I was going to say something a bit stronger than "not quite correct".


----------



## oldwheels (3 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> I understand what you're saying, as I live on the Clyde coast and most days on the A78 either north or south of here you will find yourself in a 30mph traffic snake, despite the road being perfectly safe to get near the 60mph limit. But all it takes is one selfish nobber to be more interested in admiring the view than actually driving properly.
> However, selfishness apart, they aren't CAUSING anyone to make unsafe overtaking decisions. That is purely down to the person doing the overtaking.
> Personally I would like to see more prosecutions of the dawdling drivers under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, i.e. driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. But I know it will never happen, other than in extreme cases.


I used to drive the coast road down from Gourock fairly often for weekends further south. I know it reasonably well.


----------



## Time Waster (3 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I don't believe that is *quite* correct though. If, for instance, you slow to 30mph as you enter a 30 limit, and the vehicle behind you then has to slow to 30mph as well, you are surely not committing an offence then. Nor are you committing an offence if you stop fopr a pedestrian at a zebra crossing and the car behind you has to slow as a result.
> 
> It is about *unnecessarily* causing inconvenience to others.


While driving as in normal motion. Of course not stopping for hazards or pedestrians on a crossing, etc. I think that's a little nitpicking, the basic idea behind that is valid. You're not showing down to 30mph before entering the 30mph zone through choice. Not your decision if you're a law obeying and regulation following driver.

I suspect he probably used make or made instead of resulted. It was a simple way of explaining consideration of other drivers in that your actions force them to take a action they wouldn't have if you weren't there. They'd stop for pedestrians but they'd not be doing 30mph in a wide open, 60mph, A road in good conditions and visibility. By driving like that you're modifying others in an inconsiderate way.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Time Waster said:


> While driving as in normal motion. Of course not stopping for hazards or pedestrians on a crossing, etc. I think that's a little nitpicking, the basic idea behind that is valid. You're not showing down to 30mph before entering the 30mph zone through choice. Not your decision if you're a law obeying and regulation following driver.
> 
> I suspect he probably used make or made instead of resulted. It was a simple way of explaining consideration of other drivers in that your actions force them to take a action they wouldn't have if you weren't there. They'd stop for pedestrians but they'd not be doing 30mph in a wide open, 60mph, A road in good conditions and visibility. By driving like that you're modifying others in an inconsiderate way.


You're turning to a minor road on the right against oncoming traffic on two lane road. You position yourself to the centre/right, indicator on, waiting for a gap. Car behind has to stop and wait, and they wouldn't have done if you were not there.

You're on a roundabout, car approaches the roundabout and has to stop and yield to you, and wouldn't have done if you were not there.

There are tons of things that road users do that other road users have to react to.


----------



## swansonj (3 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> ...
> While driving I don't remember ever being stuck behind a slow moving vehicle other than agricultural vehicles, heavy loads, horses or bicycles. ....


To which list of vehicles going slower than some people want we could add: traction engines, vintage cars, towing vehicles, and people driving slowly to save fuel.

Roads are a shared public space, not the private domain of motorists labouring under the delusion of entitlement. I still find it extraordinary that cyclists, of all people, should be encouraging the might-is-right, get-out-of-my-way approach to roads.


----------



## Alex321 (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> To which list of vehicles going slower than some people want we could add: traction engines, vintage cars, towing vehicles, and people driving slowly to save fuel.
> 
> Roads are a shared public space, not the private domain of motorists labouring under the delusion of entitlement. I still find it extraordinary that cyclists, of all people, should be encouraging the might-is-right, get-out-of-my-way approach to roads.


Where do y0ou see anybody encouraging that?

I certainly don't see it.

Do you really believe that being considerate of other road users is somehow doing so? And therefore we shouldn't do it?


----------



## Brandane (3 Dec 2021)

swansonj said:


> I still find it extraordinary that cyclists, of all people, should be encouraging the might-is-right, get-out-of-my-way approach to roads.


Would you mind very much quoting ANYTHING in this thread which is encouraging what you allege? 
Rather than just twisting words to suit your agenda.


----------



## Drago (3 Dec 2021)

Oh Lordy, what have I started?


----------



## DRM (3 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> A crystal ball would also be helpful when driving in unfamiliar areas. My pet hate (ok, ok; another one) is the use of direction arrows painted on the road at roundabouts or traffic light junctions. No other signs giving guidance as to which lane leads where, until you are on top of them as they were covered by other traffic. By which time it's too late and no-one is going to let you change lanes. This is particularly entertaining when driving an artic, as I found out on a regular basis .


You and me both, the person who decided to remove the lane signs should be tarred, feathered and have freezing water tipped over them and left outside on a frosty night, it’s all well and good for locals who know the area, but if your new to the area your stuffed and nobody will let you out,even when the layout of junctions is totally not a standard type of left lane for left and straight on, right lane to turn right only


----------



## gavroche (3 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> No-one has any "right" to do anything on the road. It is all subject to the law, mostly under the Road Traffic Act. Which states that it is against the law to drive without reasonable consideration for other road users. Interpret that however you like, but it is generally accepted in the courts that anyone driving in a manner which falls short of the level of competence required to pass the DVSA driving test, can be held to be driving without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other road users.
> If you go out and sit your driving test, and drive at 30 mph on a road with a 60 mph limit, and where it is clear and safe to drive near to that limit, *you will fail your test! *@gavroche ??


In a driving test situation, that is correct, you will fail your test because you are expected to drive at, or close to the speed limit if it is safe to so.


----------



## DRM (3 Dec 2021)

gavroche said:


> In a driving test situation, that is correct, you will fail your test because you are expected to drive at, or close to the speed limit if it is safe to so.


That’s true, even if the road is wholly unsuitable to drive at the speed limit on, there’s one near me that an examiner uses in order to fail people, 40 mph narrow country road, with an even narrower bridge over the M1, then a triple bend past a golf club, that old duffers just pull out of followed by a tight right hand bend.


----------



## simongt (4 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> You can add to that, "or changing direction".....


But of course, I don't need to use indicators, because I know where I'm going, so I assume that everyone else does - !


----------



## Time Waster (4 Dec 2021)

You're not in normal motion


Dogtrousers said:


> You're turning to a minor road on the right against oncoming traffic on two lane road. You position yourself to the centre/right, indicator on, waiting for a gap. Car behind has to stop and wait, and they wouldn't have done if you were not there.
> 
> You're on a roundabout, car approaches the roundabout and has to stop and yield to you, and wouldn't have done if you were not there.
> 
> There are tons of things that road users do that other road users have to react to.


OK. First you're not in normal motion but stationary waiting to turn. His point was about your motion causing the reaction such as pulling out in front of a car.

Second the car has a should with stopping to give way to the right, section 185 of the highway code iirc. The car to the right isn't making stopped car stop that's the highway code and normal motion for that car. If that car came straight out it would cause the car on the right to slow or stop their normal motion. 

I bet there's loads of valid reasons cars stop for other cars check the highway code for them. I bet the advice the cop gave me isn't 100% valid but the idea behind it of driving with consideration of other road users is very important. He was teaching a fresh motorist less than 2 months out from getting a full licence. I'm not even sure I had that back. I doubt I'd be receptive to a lecture on highway code and the law behind it.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (4 Dec 2021)

_You fail to give way_ when you pull out and you cause another vehicle to brake or alter course to avoid colliding with you. I think that's what some are thinking of here.


----------



## Alex321 (5 Dec 2021)

CanucksTraveller said:


> _You fail to give way_ when you pull out and you cause another vehicle to brake or alter course to avoid colliding with you. I think that's what some are thinking of here.


 Why do you think "some are thinking of" anything in that regard?

One person said his instructor stated you were technically committing an offence if you cause another driver to brake or change course. Everybody else has said that isn't always true.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2021)

I agree all unsafe drivers should be taken off the road, regardless of age.

But I have a little sympathy for the doddery old coffin dodgers, possible because the day I become one draws ever nearer.


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Dec 2021)

Time Waster said:


> His point was about your motion causing the reaction such as pulling out in front of a car.


Which is fair enough. "Don't present other road users with an unexpected problem that they have to react to" is good advice.


----------



## dave r (5 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> I agree all unsafe drivers should be taken off the road, regardless of age.
> 
> But I have a little sympathy for the doddery old coffin dodgers, possible because the day I become one draws ever nearer.



That'll creep up on you, one day you'll look in the mirror and wonder who that old person staring back at you is, then you'll realize, I've been there done that.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2021)

dave r said:


> That'll creep up on you, one day you'll look in the mirror and wonder who that old person staring back at you is, then you'll realize, I've been there done that.



I suppose simply reaching that stage should be celebrated given the numbers of us who die before our time.


----------



## sheddy (5 Dec 2021)

Rant ! 
“Ruel, who had a clean driving licence, told police that she had stopped at the roundabout and claimed she had a “clear view”.

https://road.cc/content/news/ps440-fine-driver-92-who-hit-cyclist-cambridge-288389


----------



## FishFright (5 Dec 2021)

oldwheels said:


> So 30mph on a 60mph limit main road and not pulling over for traffic behind is ok? I have seen various accidents reported over time where that was the main cause.
> I have a timetable deadline to meet and should be able to maintain a reasonable speed on a main road.



No you shouldn't and don't, but you're no means on your own. All you drivers share the road with every other user so don't drive like you own it.


----------



## dave r (5 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> I suppose simply reaching that stage should be celebrated given the numbers of us who die before our time.



Yes definetly, I look back and think how'd I manage to survive this long, a week of my 70'th.


----------



## mustang1 (5 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Nothing wrong with a bit of topspin, but it's rather worrying a trained investigator has fallen for it.



Those out-of-context headlines really light to be curtailed. There are people who talk this way and only when delving in deep (aka wasting time trying to find out the truth when they could be a lot more forthcoming in the first place) does the real story come out.


----------



## Fat Lars (5 Dec 2021)

When you reach the age of 70 and then for every 3 years after that you have to self certify whether or not you have various conditions. If you have previously had those conditions or if you have declared those conditions previously then have they got worse and give details if affirmative. Regarding eyesight wearing glasses and a recent eye test is acceptable. From this declaration an assessment is made on your suitability to drive. If you have lied then you can be fined. If you fail and are rejected then should you be able to cycle on the roads? Just a thought.


----------



## Alex321 (5 Dec 2021)

FishFright said:


> No you shouldn't and don't, but you're no means on your own. All you drivers share the road with every other user so don't drive like you own it.


So why are you advocating that it is OK to do so?

Because that is what you are doing.


----------



## CXRAndy (5 Dec 2021)

Everyone I mean everyone who has a driving license should be retested every 5 years. This should include a simulator hazard awareness reaction score, general driving skill and knowledge of current driving standards, signage. 

The score you get should have a weighting on insurance premium. If you fail badly, lose license. Fail marginally, retake test in 30 days and if you fail 2nd time lose license.

All this extra revenue, to be used to raise driving safety standards, training.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Dec 2021)

dave r said:


> Yes definetly, I look back and think how'd I manage to survive this long, a week of my 70'th.



Blimey, that's proper old.


----------



## steveindenmark (6 Dec 2021)

Having their skills assessed is an easy way to get them off the road. You would struggle to do that just by them going through a red light.


----------



## dave r (6 Dec 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Blimey, that's proper old.



No, proper old are mates of ours who are in their 90's


----------



## Drago (6 Dec 2021)

I guess the sooner that genuinely effective autonomous cars arrive, the safer we'll all be.


----------



## newfhouse (6 Dec 2021)

Fat Lars said:


> If you fail and are rejected then should you be able to cycle on the roads?


Yes. On a bike you don’t bring the same level of danger to others as you would by driving a car.


----------



## oldwheels (6 Dec 2021)

FishFright said:


> No you shouldn't and don't, but you're no means on your own. All you drivers share the road with every other user so don't drive like you own it.


What you illustrate is simply bad manners and a disregard for other road users. We share the road which means cooperation to make travel possible.


----------

