Gripe of the day - What is yours?

[admin]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

Apols if an offensive vent John, it was a bit of a kneejerk from a bit of fresh worry about my parents. It was supposed to be a little tongue in cheek with the whole 'I'll change my stance when I'm that age' thing. Didn't expect anyone to take any notice.

It wasn't offensive Dave so don't worry on that score. I just wanted to put across another perspective. Having read up more on this story, it would appear that the graduated licence would only apply to those with certain medical conditions. At the moment it's pretty binary and certain conditions would just take your licence away, this idea is to partially remove it, that is restrict when and where you can drive.
When you live in a area rural like mine a car is a life line as public transport is very poor. So taking taking a licence away can have a huge impact on person of any age.




Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

I have noticed that the more expensive the car the worse the driving often is, as if they have more 'right' than people in smaller cars. Round our way certain ethnic groups have males who have either not taken a test, have lost their licence or are no longer fit to drive and you see women who can hardly see over the steering wheel piloting big Mercs and Beemers around in very erratic fashion, with a bloke sitting in the back, to be avoided at all costs, to describe their driving as merely 'unpredictable' is being kind.

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

Both those made me laugh! The org is on form today, or is it the topic?!



Not entirely sure why you posted that (could be a few things I guress) though I do love a highway code interpretation session and a question just sparked - I'd always hoped to be able to argue, if challenged, "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so" that a vehicle could be signalling to me their intention to turn right with behaviour other than using indicators . i.e road positioning right most, shoulder check. What do the org think?

The multilane bit "and they're turning right" is similar to my question above (and actually validitates my thought above a bit) . It obviously doesn't mean the steering wheel has been turned and they're moving away from parallel with you... it's about intention. Re. my example's intention - at that time there was feck all - she was literally half a mile to a mile from the next right turn - there aren't even houses on the right of the stretch, only a body of water. What I was getting at, and she didn't admit to was she'd subconsciously/habitually/lazily avoided the inactive buslane on the left. I was a bit surprised by the 'it's convenient for me screw everyone else' sort of response I got back - I took it more of defensiveness from the lack of awareness engaged up until that point (which is what worried me).

I do agree young people are higher risk and generally disagree strongly with discriminating but in terms of survival it is sometimes useful to observe common factors - re. age I did state subject to testing in my flippant comment above. .
Edit: but now I'm questioning that last sentence, and myself - as I've definitely challenged anyone bleating similar about race or gender.

It was only to point out that anyone passing on the left was doing so legally, and in any other situation too.

Near where i live there are a lot of people who do the same (all ages and vehicles) who sit in the right hand lane for a mile or more to turn right, even though there is no traffic. I pass safely on the left at the speed limit, rather than creating a rolling roadblock sitting behind them.

Unfortunately the majority of people don't consider the impact of their driving actions on others. EG people lane hogging, blocking junctions, deliberately being in the wrong lane at a junction.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by DJ123

It was only to point out that anyone passing on the left was doing so legally, and in any other situation too.

Near where i live there are a lot of people who do the same (all ages and vehicles) who sit in the right hand lane for a mile or more to turn right, even though there is no traffic. I pass safely on the left at the speed limit, rather than creating a rolling roadblock sitting behind them.

Unfortunately the majority of people don't consider the impact of their driving actions on others. EG people lane hogging, blocking junctions, deliberately being in the wrong lane at a junction.

Yeah, I didn't blame the passing drivers I just don't think they should have had to. Especially on that stretch, having done it many times you've got a hard bank on the left and one t-junction that, to get a field of view out of, cars creep into the carriageway leaving little in the way of an escape route which I like to have available to me in general, especially when passing a vehicle because you don't know what they're going to do. On this particular stretch people tend to jump back left as they suddenly realise they're in the wrong lane (and aren't turning right) and just avoided the left lane because it had white writing on it that they couldn't be bothered to read.

Back to the highway code terminology - would they have been legal in passing if my example wasn't turning right after all?

[DJ123]

For me, i would say yes. As the distance travelled in the right hand land (as you said) would be significant enough to make me believe/assume the car must be turning right at the junction. As there is no other reason to sit there for that length of time. Your manoeuvre (if undertaking) would only prove to be unfounded/'illegal' once the other vehicle had passed the turning point and continued straight on. By which point you would already be past the point of danger of the other vehicle moving into lane 1.
TBH its the same decision making i use locally along a 50mph dual carriageway, with 3 turn right lanes over a 1 mile stretch. I know if the person goes straight to the outside lane they're turning right somewhere, and i continue on my way in lane 1.

[SV650rules]

I think the clue is 'has signaled their intention' either by old fashioned sticking you arm out or by the new fangled indicators illuminated by electricity.... If there is going to be any danger to me I ignore indicators and wait until the vehicle has actually started their manoeuvre - been caught a few time by people leaving indicators on. Reason I have fitted these blue indicator repeaters to my last few bikes, bright blue 5mm LED visible in peripheral vision even in bright sun, as an extra to those dim green lamps fitted by OEM. Picture attached, the two LED are lit because 'hazards are on' normally only left or right one flashes.

[admin]

Just watched the MotoGP highlights on ITV4. Absolutely awful. Boring commentary, silent bikes, a commentator who screams on the last lap and no replays.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

There is a difference between a right and an earned entitlement. Driving is NOT a right, when I was born I did not have the right to drive. I earned the entitlement to drive when I passed my test. This may seem like a semantic argument, but I think goes to the heart of the poor driving standards currently plaguing the UK. Everyone thinks they have a 'right' to drive - they do not. The privilege of driving un-supervised is earned through passing a test at the appropriate age. This privilege can be revoked through being un-fit due to health or by being found to not meet the required standards. A right cannot be legally withdrawn.

A lot of people seem to think they can drive like ****s because they have a 'right' to drive, when in fact they should be working to maintain their standards as the license (an earned privilege) to drive can be removed. If we were in the lucky position of having enough police officers to effectively police driving standards laws a lot more people would be losing their licences no matter their age.

It does seem to me like you are engaging in semantics - 'right' or 'entitlement', for example . What do you mean by-
' A right cannot be legally withdrawn.' ? -of course it can, for drink driving for example or medical reasons as we have said. Nobody is suggesting people can drive like idiots because they have a right to drive and nobody is saying anybody is born with the right to drive.
I am afraid we will have to agree to differ on this one because you have lost me .

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Round our way certain ethnic groups have males who have either not taken a test, have lost their licence or are no longer fit to drive

Wow, be careful, on dodgy ground there !

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by admin

Just watched the MotoGP highlights on ITV4. Absolutely awful. Boring commentary, silent bikes, a commentator who screams on the last lap and no replays.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

I find British Superbikes better to watch than MotoGP.