time to p*** off the motorists again

[growingvegetables]

you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads.

If you are seriously suggesting we have "lovely smooth roads", you're bonkers

But I like your idea - if car drivers pay for them, then it's time to make drivers pay a damned sight more to get the roads back into good repair.

 

[element]

Only 160 odd cyclists die each year while using the motorists roads.

 

[element]

If you are seriously suggesting we have "lovely smooth roads", you're bonkers

But I like your idea - if car drivers pay for them, then it's time to make drivers pay a damned sight more to get the roads back into good repair.

Go to anywhere outside Western Europe and Noth America then let me see you complain about our roads.

 

[Bicycle]

This is the Clarkson position, as I recall, that 3,000 or so deaths a year is something to be pleased with.

I think the "few" incidents arise at least partly from;

1) The motor car has largely bullied all but the brave, skilful or foolhardy from the roads.

2) The motorist has become increasingly well protected by their vehicle

3) A degree of "herd immunity" in which the careful compensate for people on their phones, reading books &c at the wheel. (Punishments for the latter being risible, and there being no sense that this is dangerous behaviour in the way that, say, drink driving is perceived to be).

4) "Forgiving" road design

It may seem that I am with Clarkson on this, but the truth is otherwise.

I am a keen cyclist and motorist.

He is a keen motorist who claims to have contempt for cyclists.

I am not pleased about the road-death figures, but I am staggered that they are not higher. That was my point. I think the current system works well. That doesn't mean I am pleased when casualties occur.

I do glory in the barminess of such mass, force and velocity being in the hands of mere human beings, but I cycle in that stuff too. So do my wife and children.

I'm not sure I agree either about cars bullying other road users off the roads. I see more cyclists now than I did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

I may be wrong, perception is not always my friend.

 

[Mad at urage]

libraries, jobcentres? what's wrong with workplaces giving access for 30 mins during lunch?

What about retired drivers? How are they supposed to access a computer?

In any case, the perception test is not about perception, it is about being familiar with online games and learning a new game. I (and other advanced motorists) frequently fail those tests available on the web, because we percieve more things as potential hazards and see all the hazards too early: The 'test' decides we are clicking too much and must be doing so at random (I give you for example the cyclist overtaking a truck, posted earlier on these forums: The 'test' identifies the cyclist as a potential hazard when he looks over his shoulder having realised there is a lorry in front of him. I realised he was going to move out some time before that ...).

Many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers. Your suggestion discriminates against them.

 

[rowan 46]

Only 160 odd cyclists die each year while using the motorists roads.

most of which are caused by driver carelessness and what about injuries to cyclists near misses and motorist on motorist crashes a pedestrian was killed down our street 2 weeks ago 15years old leaving a grieving family. every untimely death leaves somebody else with a shattered life. no body is saying motorists go out like death race 2000 the problem is that once people have the piece of paper saying they can drive they never have to be accountable again unless something serious happens and then that's too late.

 

[rowan 46]

What about retired drivers? How are they supposed to access a computer?

In any case, the perception test is not about perception, it is about being familiar with online games and learning a new game. I (and other advanced motorists) frequently fail those tests available on the web, because we percieve more things as potential hazards and see all the hazards too early: The 'test' decides we are clicking too much and must be doing so at random (I give you for example the cyclist overtaking a truck, posted earlier on these forums: The 'test' identifies the cyclist as a potential hazard when he looks over his shoulder having realised there is a lorry in front of him. I realised he was going to move out some time before that ...).

Many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers. Your suggestion discriminates against them.

you may have a point about its failings but its surely not beyond the wit of man to design a good one. I am not sure how many don't have access to the internet i must admit but most people could get access if they have a reason surely half an hour to keep your license isnt too much to ask. schools could be opened up for a couple of hours in the evening etc

 

[Rhythm Thief]

My reason for posting was not so much that I feel the general standard of driving is so bad it's just that motorists get complacent . there are regular near misses caused by drivers inattention. it strikes me that anyone who cannot pass the present perception test within 3 attempts has no right to be on the road. I am not trying to force drivers off the road just reminding them to think when they are on it.

I've never even taken a hazard perception test, and I drive around 1800 miles every week.

 

[tsddave]

Comparing this between England and Norway (where I live now!) I would say the roads in the UK are much better.
The roads in Norway suffer alot here and pots holes and cracks are commonplace. The cycle paths are better in Norway though, at least those in the area I live.

 

[lukesdad]

I d do one for cyclists first.

 

[Mad at urage]

you may have a point about its failings but its surely not beyond the wit of man to design a good one. I am not sure how many don't have access to the internet i must admit but most people could get access if they have a reason surely half an hour to keep your license isnt too much to ask. schools could be opened up for a couple of hours in the evening etc

Certainly it is not beyond the wit of man to design a good computer game, but as long as it is accessed via a normal computer, htat is what it remains, not a driving simulator (whatever its title may be).

Again, many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers (or computer games).

 

[abo]

They would give the project to EDS who would screw it up.

Hewlett Packard now, you should know that

 

[Wankelschrauben]

To implement what the OP has proposed would cost an absolute fortune in immediate and ongoing costs.

It will also reduce revenues by some degree for all those who fail, lose their licences and possibly their jobs.

Perhaps instead of such a drastic change, a simpler solution would be to include into the hazard perception test an additional area focusing upon the required distance and correct manner by which to pass a cyclist and what to look out for including wind against flags and other hazards that may cause a cyclist to swerve or change direction suddenly.

Also, to remind road users, a televised road safety campaign could also be produced. Like the ones they used to make for speed awareness and the look, look and look again campaigns.

In reality, the vast majority of motorists have no idea of the danger that they pose to a bicycle or slower moving vehicle whilst overtaking, anything from wind turbulence to actual colision.

I'm sure a video from inside the average car of an average man overtaking a cyclist too closely, or cutting back in too soon, or slowing immediately upon overtaking, all whilst perfectly happy and blissfully unaware to suddenly hear the blood churning consequences of the carnage caused behind him will change the majority of motorists actions when passing a cyclist.

 

[rowan 46]

Certainly it is not beyond the wit of man to design a good computer game, but as long as it is accessed via a normal computer, htat is what it remains, not a driving simulator (whatever its title may be).

Again, many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers (or computer games).

neither did i say they had but the perception test has been part of the driving test for some time now. It,s just that there have been calls on many forums for many years for mandatory retesting. i feel that is going too far. But in many other walks of life if you were using dangerous machinery you would be required to do refreshers and or recertification I was just trying to suggest what I felt to be the minimum required. To my mind most accidents are caused by driver inattention any way to make concentration better would i am sure help cut accidents and maybe driver costs

 

[rowan 46]

To implement what the OP has proposed would cost an absolute fortune in immediate and ongoing costs.

It will also reduce revenues by some degree for all those who fail, lose their licences and possibly their jobs.

Perhaps instead of such a drastic change, a simpler solution would be to include into the hazard perception test an additional area focusing upon the required distance and correct manner by which to pass a cyclist and what to look out for including wind against flags and other hazards that may cause a cyclist to swerve or change direction suddenly.

Also, to remind road users, a televised road safety campaign could also be produced. Like the ones they used to make for speed awareness and the look, look and look again campaigns.

In reality, the vast majority of motorists have no idea of the danger that they pose to a bicycle or slower moving vehicle whilst overtaking, anything from wind turbulence to actual colision.

I'm sure a video from inside the average car of an average man overtaking a cyclist too closely, or cutting back in too soon, or slowing immediately upon overtaking, all whilst perfectly happy and blissfully unaware to suddenly hear the blood churning consequences of the carnage caused behind him will change the majority of motorists actions when passing a cyclist.

I would go for that but that still leaves the millions who have already taken their tests and doesn't address driver complacency as to cost I am not sure it would cost so much. as I have said in other threads it's a talking point that's all I am not wedded to the idea but who knows someone may something useful. I agree it's only a half thought idea and needs fleshing out or abandoning. that's why I brought it to you lot