S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
JNugent
Guest
spindrift wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm
That's rather an odd subject line - *even for you* - given the
contents of the item:
QUOTE:
10mph motorway driver given ban
A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
Stephanie Cole, 58, of Fishponds, Bristol, repeatedly jammed on the
brakes as she straddled the hard shoulder and inside lane of the M32.
When police caught her there was a sign on the back of her car which
read: "I do not drive fast, please overtake."
Mrs Cole, who admitted driving without reasonable consideration, was
also ordered to take another driving test.
When officers stopped Mrs Cole, she told them she had "no confidence"
on the motorway.
She was travelling from her home to a Staples stationery store when
she was arrested by police on 30 August.
North Avon Magistrates' Court had previously heard Mrs Cole said her
GP had been treating her for "fear of driving" for the past
three-and-a-half years.
Magistrates said they took into consideration the fact that Mrs Cole
has multiple sclerosis.
ENDQUOTE
Do you think that last line might provide an explanation? And that the
court may well have been considering the welfare of the defendant as a
paramount issue?
Or do you insist that driving at 10mph is "speeding"?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm
That's rather an odd subject line - *even for you* - given the
contents of the item:
QUOTE:
10mph motorway driver given ban
A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
Stephanie Cole, 58, of Fishponds, Bristol, repeatedly jammed on the
brakes as she straddled the hard shoulder and inside lane of the M32.
When police caught her there was a sign on the back of her car which
read: "I do not drive fast, please overtake."
Mrs Cole, who admitted driving without reasonable consideration, was
also ordered to take another driving test.
When officers stopped Mrs Cole, she told them she had "no confidence"
on the motorway.
She was travelling from her home to a Staples stationery store when
she was arrested by police on 30 August.
North Avon Magistrates' Court had previously heard Mrs Cole said her
GP had been treating her for "fear of driving" for the past
three-and-a-half years.
Magistrates said they took into consideration the fact that Mrs Cole
has multiple sclerosis.
ENDQUOTE
Do you think that last line might provide an explanation? And that the
court may well have been considering the welfare of the defendant as a
paramount issue?
Or do you insist that driving at 10mph is "speeding"?
D
Dave Larrington
Guest
In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> QUOTE:
> 10mph motorway driver given ban
> A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
> along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
> ENDQUOTE
I think she's moved to Essex and was driving a Nissan Micra near J7 of the
M11 this morning. And braked for the exit slip road about 3/4 mile before
reaching it.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Dead journalists make excellent objets d'art.
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> QUOTE:
> 10mph motorway driver given ban
> A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
> along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
> ENDQUOTE
I think she's moved to Essex and was driving a Nissan Micra near J7 of the
M11 this morning. And braked for the exit slip road about 3/4 mile before
reaching it.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Dead journalists make excellent objets d'art.
M
Matt B
Guest
S
Shaun
Guest
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 04:41:52 -0800 (PST), spindrift
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm
This cannot be - the speed cameras registered her as the safest driver
in the country
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm
This cannot be - the speed cameras registered her as the safest driver
in the country
J
JNugent
Guest
Dave Larrington wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]>:
>>QUOTE:
>>10mph motorway driver given ban
>>A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
>>along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
>>ENDQUOTE
> I think she's moved to Essex and was driving a Nissan Micra near J7 of the
> M11 this morning. And braked for the exit slip road about 3/4 mile before
> reaching it.
I think she has friends in most locations.
> JNugent <[email protected]>:
>>QUOTE:
>>10mph motorway driver given ban
>>A woman has been banned from driving for seven days after she drove
>>along a motorway at speeds lower than 10mph.
>>ENDQUOTE
> I think she's moved to Essex and was driving a Nissan Micra near J7 of the
> M11 this morning. And braked for the exit slip road about 3/4 mile before
> reaching it.
I think she has friends in most locations.
M
Martin Dann
Guest
Roger Merriman wrote:
> she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
> be best not driving at least at this point.
According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
that she will start driving again ASAP
From:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disp...sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=19455179
> After the court hearing Cole said: "I am disappointed, but I will be back driving again. A seven-day ban is seven days too long."
Although I do have sympathy for her, I would not want to see her driving
again, especially on roads near me. If she does retake her test, then
she should be made to go on the A4174.
Martin.
> she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
> be best not driving at least at this point.
According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
that she will start driving again ASAP
From:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disp...sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=19455179
> After the court hearing Cole said: "I am disappointed, but I will be back driving again. A seven-day ban is seven days too long."
Although I do have sympathy for her, I would not want to see her driving
again, especially on roads near me. If she does retake her test, then
she should be made to go on the A4174.
Martin.
R
Roger Merriman
Guest
Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
> > be best not driving at least at this point.
>
> According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
> that she will start driving again ASAP
i can see that public transport in a wheelchair wouldn't be ideal, and i
wouldn't want someone house bound, but neither should she be driving.
>
> From:
> <http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=disp
> layContent&sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=19455179>
>
> > After the court hearing Cole said: "I am disappointed, but I will be
> back driving again. A seven-day ban is seven days too long."
>
> Although I do have sympathy for her, I would not want to see her driving
> again, especially on roads near me. If she does retake her test, then
> she should be made to go on the A4174.
at present she doesn't sound like she'd be safe on any road. apparently
she goes to a centre not a million miles from where my sister lives...
>
> Martin.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
> > be best not driving at least at this point.
>
> According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
> that she will start driving again ASAP
i can see that public transport in a wheelchair wouldn't be ideal, and i
wouldn't want someone house bound, but neither should she be driving.
>
> From:
> <http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=disp
> layContent&sourceNode=231512&home=yes&contentPK=19455179>
>
> > After the court hearing Cole said: "I am disappointed, but I will be
> back driving again. A seven-day ban is seven days too long."
>
> Although I do have sympathy for her, I would not want to see her driving
> again, especially on roads near me. If she does retake her test, then
> she should be made to go on the A4174.
at present she doesn't sound like she'd be safe on any road. apparently
she goes to a centre not a million miles from where my sister lives...
>
> Martin.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
N
Nigel Randell
Guest
>
> Brake's spokesman, Lorna Jackson said, "This case sends out a very
> strange message to drivers. Mrs Cole was not breaking the speed limit
> or endangering anyone with her actions, yet she received a seven day
> ban, when we commonly see drivers caught travelling at 80 or 90mph get
> away with a fine and three points. While it is not common to encounter
> someone travelling at 10mph on a motorway, a competent driver should
> always be looking well ahead and predicting when they need to overtake
> a slower vehicle."
>
It sends out a strange message to Brake who don't seem to realise that
"inappropriate speed" can sometimes mean too slow. I think that message is
pretty clear to the rest of us
The worrying thing was that in the woman's interview she said that she "just
didn't know what to do". I would suggest to her that she stays away from
driving on her own until she does know what to do, and if that means further
Motorway tuition after her re-test then so be it.
--
Nigel
> Brake's spokesman, Lorna Jackson said, "This case sends out a very
> strange message to drivers. Mrs Cole was not breaking the speed limit
> or endangering anyone with her actions, yet she received a seven day
> ban, when we commonly see drivers caught travelling at 80 or 90mph get
> away with a fine and three points. While it is not common to encounter
> someone travelling at 10mph on a motorway, a competent driver should
> always be looking well ahead and predicting when they need to overtake
> a slower vehicle."
>
It sends out a strange message to Brake who don't seem to realise that
"inappropriate speed" can sometimes mean too slow. I think that message is
pretty clear to the rest of us
The worrying thing was that in the woman's interview she said that she "just
didn't know what to do". I would suggest to her that she stays away from
driving on her own until she does know what to do, and if that means further
Motorway tuition after her re-test then so be it.
--
Nigel
J
Jon
Guest
On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> endangering anyone?
It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
react.
> This woman really does need to retake her test.
Agreed - she obviously cannot drive properly.
Jon
> Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> endangering anyone?
It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
react.
> This woman really does need to retake her test.
Agreed - she obviously cannot drive properly.
Jon
P
Paul Boyd
Guest
Jon said the following on 07/01/2008 11:51:
> It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> react.
The problem is that drivers in and around Bristol seem to be
particularly impatient and aggressive. This is especially noticeable
when you've been away from the city for a while, then have the
misfortune to have to come back. Another problem is the way in which
they will react - it's not "Oh, there's an obstacle - I'd better take
appropriate action", it's "WTF is that stupid cow doing holding me up
for a few seconds?" or "Tum-te-tum, nice packet of crisps. I wonder
what's for tea tonight. Oh f*&*^(^ - crash". Have you seen how many
lorry drivers wander all over the lanes, including into the hard shoulder?
The bottom line is that whilst it's nice in theory to expect everyone to
be paying attention, in the real world drivers simply don't expect a
virtually stationary vehicle in a running lane, or even half in a
running lane!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
> It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> react.
The problem is that drivers in and around Bristol seem to be
particularly impatient and aggressive. This is especially noticeable
when you've been away from the city for a while, then have the
misfortune to have to come back. Another problem is the way in which
they will react - it's not "Oh, there's an obstacle - I'd better take
appropriate action", it's "WTF is that stupid cow doing holding me up
for a few seconds?" or "Tum-te-tum, nice packet of crisps. I wonder
what's for tea tonight. Oh f*&*^(^ - crash". Have you seen how many
lorry drivers wander all over the lanes, including into the hard shoulder?
The bottom line is that whilst it's nice in theory to expect everyone to
be paying attention, in the real world drivers simply don't expect a
virtually stationary vehicle in a running lane, or even half in a
running lane!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
R
Rob Morley
Guest
In article <9adcac53-86da-417f-b81a-
[email protected]>, Jon
[email protected] says...
> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > endangering anyone?
>
> It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> react.
>
But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
[email protected]>, Jon
[email protected] says...
> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > endangering anyone?
>
> It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> react.
>
But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
J
Jon
Guest
On 7 Jan, 14:40, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <9adcac53-86da-417f-b81a-
> [email protected]>, Jon
> [email protected] says...> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > > endangering anyone?
>
> > It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> > effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> > failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> > they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> > attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> > react.
>
> But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
> whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
> competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
> incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
re-testing. Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
made fit for incompetent drivers.
Jon
> In article <9adcac53-86da-417f-b81a-
> [email protected]>, Jon
> [email protected] says...> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > > endangering anyone?
>
> > It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> > effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> > failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> > they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> > attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> > react.
>
> But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
> whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
> competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
> incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
re-testing. Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
made fit for incompetent drivers.
Jon
P
Peter Clinch
Guest
Jon wrote:
> So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
> for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
> re-testing.
On the one hand, yes, but on the other you'll only find out about them
when it's too late, and in the meantime it makes sense to remove things
which can create more problems than there would otherwise be.
Pragmatism in action.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
> for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
> re-testing.
On the one hand, yes, but on the other you'll only find out about them
when it's too late, and in the meantime it makes sense to remove things
which can create more problems than there would otherwise be.
Pragmatism in action.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
P
Paul Boyd
Guest
Jon said the following on 08/01/2008 08:42:
> So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
> for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
> re-testing. Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> made fit for incompetent drivers.
....whilst the rest of us live in the real world. Personally, I would
support having to retake a driving test every five or ten years, but
that isn't going to happen.
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
> So they are the real danger, not any obstacle which could always occur
> for any of a hundred reasons, so they are the ones who really need the
> re-testing. Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> made fit for incompetent drivers.
....whilst the rest of us live in the real world. Personally, I would
support having to retake a driving test every five or ten years, but
that isn't going to happen.
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
S
On 7 Jan, 14:40, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <9adcac53-86da-417f-b81a-
> [email protected]>, Jon
> [email protected] says...> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > > endangering anyone?
>
> > It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> > effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> > failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> > they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> > attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> > react.
>
> But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
> whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
> competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
> incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
Whilst it may be that some do not class her actions as dangerous,
mostly not members of this fraternity, it is a fact that slow moving
vehicles present a disproportionate danger to others. The
appreciation of speed is lessened on approach at motorway speeds not
least because of 'autonomic habitation' to higher speeds. Put simply
drivers fail to appreciate that a vehicle in front is not going at the
expected speed and close rapidly massively increasing the visual
stopping distance and reducing the effective stopping distance so that
heavy or emergency braking is required to avoid collision.
It's not always incompetence that leads to these collisions,
particularly in these circumstances.
Sniper8052
> In article <9adcac53-86da-417f-b81a-
> [email protected]>, Jon
> [email protected] says...> On 7 Jan, 08:20, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > > Driving at 10mph on a busy 2-lane urban motorway straddling the
> > > inside lane and hard shoulder whilst braking, and Brake think this isn't
> > > endangering anyone?
>
> > It was very inconvenient for everyone else on the road, in that in
> > effect it closed off one lane, but not dangerous unless other drivers
> > failed to react properly. Every competent driver knows what to do if
> > they see an obstacle in front of them, and should be paying enough
> > attention to the road ahead that they have plenty of time in which to
> > react.
>
> But as we know there are many incompetent drivers on the roads, many of
> whom apparently have no idea how to drive safely on motorways; even if a
> competent driver slows in time he's likely to be hit from behind by an
> incompetent one, so so it was dangerous.
Whilst it may be that some do not class her actions as dangerous,
mostly not members of this fraternity, it is a fact that slow moving
vehicles present a disproportionate danger to others. The
appreciation of speed is lessened on approach at motorway speeds not
least because of 'autonomic habitation' to higher speeds. Put simply
drivers fail to appreciate that a vehicle in front is not going at the
expected speed and close rapidly massively increasing the visual
stopping distance and reducing the effective stopping distance so that
heavy or emergency braking is required to avoid collision.
It's not always incompetence that leads to these collisions,
particularly in these circumstances.
Sniper8052
M
Matt B
Guest
Jon wrote:
>
> Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> made fit for incompetent drivers.
I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user, than
rely on the skill and knowledge of other users to keep me safe on
dangerous roads.
* I know there will always be those who deliberately abuse any system,
but we already have adequate common law to deal with them.
--
Matt B
>
> Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> made fit for incompetent drivers.
I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user, than
rely on the skill and knowledge of other users to keep me safe on
dangerous roads.
* I know there will always be those who deliberately abuse any system,
but we already have adequate common law to deal with them.
--
Matt B
R
Rob Morley
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Matt B
[email protected] says...
> Jon wrote:
> >
> > Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> > made fit for incompetent drivers.
>
> I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user,
When the "normal" road user is as
incompetent/inconsiderate/thoughtless/careless as many seem to be I
think a major program of social education and legislation would be more
effective. Make cars/roads safer for motorists and they worry less
about crashing, make them safer for other road users and the motorists
worry less about hitting other people ...
[email protected] says...
> Jon wrote:
> >
> > Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
> > made fit for incompetent drivers.
>
> I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user,
When the "normal" road user is as
incompetent/inconsiderate/thoughtless/careless as many seem to be I
think a major program of social education and legislation would be more
effective. Make cars/roads safer for motorists and they worry less
about crashing, make them safer for other road users and the motorists
worry less about hitting other people ...
B
bugbear
Guest
Roger Merriman wrote:
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>>> she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
>>> be best not driving at least at this point.
>> According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
>> that she will start driving again ASAP
>
> i can see that public transport in a wheelchair wouldn't be ideal, and i
> wouldn't want someone house bound, but neither should she be driving.
Indeed. Perhaps a move of place-of-domicile is indicated?
To somewhere where the facilities she currently drives to
are within walking/wheelchairing/mobility scootering distance.
BugBear
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>>> she seems to have a number of problems, but regardless she would seem to
>>> be best not driving at least at this point.
>> According to my local rag, she "relies" on her car, and has declared
>> that she will start driving again ASAP
>
> i can see that public transport in a wheelchair wouldn't be ideal, and i
> wouldn't want someone house bound, but neither should she be driving.
Indeed. Perhaps a move of place-of-domicile is indicated?
To somewhere where the facilities she currently drives to
are within walking/wheelchairing/mobility scootering distance.
BugBear
M
Matt B
Guest
Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B
> [email protected] says...
>> Jon wrote:
>>> Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
>>> made fit for incompetent drivers.
>> I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user,
>
> When the "normal" road user is as
> incompetent/inconsiderate/thoughtless/careless as many seem to be I
> think a major program of social education and legislation would be more
> effective.
Education, maybe, but legislation, no. The Dutch realised 20 years ago
that people will be human, even if they are drivers, and that the road
system needs to be designed around their weaknesses, and that a safety
regime rooted in regulation is a non-starter. Reserve legal sanctions
for those whose actions are deliberately criminal and pre-meditated.
> Make cars/roads safer for motorists and they worry less
> about crashing, make them safer for other road users and the motorists
> worry less about hitting other people ...
How about designing the roads and the vehicles so that it is obvious and
automatic how to use them safely, and no special knowledge is required
to be safe. Even design-in tolerance of minor errors and misjudgements.
--
Matt B
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B
> [email protected] says...
>> Jon wrote:
>>> Drivers should be fit to be on the road, not the roads
>>> made fit for incompetent drivers.
>> I'd rather we make the roads safe for all types of normal* user,
>
> When the "normal" road user is as
> incompetent/inconsiderate/thoughtless/careless as many seem to be I
> think a major program of social education and legislation would be more
> effective.
Education, maybe, but legislation, no. The Dutch realised 20 years ago
that people will be human, even if they are drivers, and that the road
system needs to be designed around their weaknesses, and that a safety
regime rooted in regulation is a non-starter. Reserve legal sanctions
for those whose actions are deliberately criminal and pre-meditated.
> Make cars/roads safer for motorists and they worry less
> about crashing, make them safer for other road users and the motorists
> worry less about hitting other people ...
How about designing the roads and the vehicles so that it is obvious and
automatic how to use them safely, and no special knowledge is required
to be safe. Even design-in tolerance of minor errors and misjudgements.
--
Matt B
Similar threads
D
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 378
R
C
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 968
C
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K