DT Ralge

Sitting beyond the first stop line and short of the second stop line in these forward holding areas (for cyclists) is not in itself an offence. The offence involves not stopping at either of the lines when the lights demand it. You MUST stop at the first unless ... unless ... at the amber but if you can’t stop at the first, the second stop line is another must stop unless ... unless ... The size, weight, speed of your vehicle and the road surface, what’s behind you may make stopping impracticable (but the PC will take a view). The law therefore allows you to sit in this forward holding area on occasions. And this is what is enforced across the country except for some London boroughs where, somewhat unjustly, you will get a ticket for being there.

No, it’s not taught. If it is, the instructor needs to read up.

Interesting, thanks.

I’ve nothing against a review but let’s have it delving into facts and figures.

50 in a 30 would have disqualified you from attending a course and would most likely have resulted in a court appearance and a Band C fine (150% of weekly wage).

They make more sense that you think, I’d suggest. They are targeted at marginal speeders on the basis that those doing more than marginal speeding are thought to be beyond the pale (and educational help) - I have disagreed with this approach in the past but the band of marginal speed has been extended over the years to the current figure of 42mph. With half of road deaths involving vulnerable road users mostly in urban areas , marginal speeders are targeted for courses because of their sheer number and because of the Laws of Physics and Probability. Physics: every mph over any given speed makes a disproportionate difference to the force of impact in any resultant coming-together. (Drivers genuinely don’t know, understand or appreciate this as realty, truth, fact - hence an easy educational benefit. Your own contribution above - uncontested until now - says so). Probability: the vast bulk of marginal speeding goes unnoticed and nobody gets hurt. Sooner or later, someone does get hurt. Currently, a quarter of the road deaths are pedestrians. No driving licence comes with a guarantee that you won’t meet the kamikaze pedestrian. As for revenue raising, I thought we’d killed that easy, lazy, spoon-fed cliché a long time ago - but it appears not because so many people have repeated it and it has become the perceived truth. Oh well ...

Couldn’t agree more. When asked they (pretty much) all say “7” on a scale of 0 to 10 (when 0 = rubbish and 10 is expert) - they can’t all be right, can they? Most, however, when challenged can drive decently. My job is to give them an alternative view and to nudge them to “decent plus” and I don’t get too much resistance. Whether any improvement is sustained over time is down to their personality, work, life pressures etc etc and level of commitment to change.

There are d/c's with lay-bys but no hard shoulder. Volume of traffic and traffic density on these roads less than motorways? Try the on-ramps A38 around Ripley. Try the A34 above Newbury on a good day. Try negotiating the lay-bys hidden around a bend on A61 (“ last lay-by before M1”) or A1 northbound and north of Retford turn-off. (You may be proving my oft-made training point that some/many drivers are fearful/wary of motorways but not of dual-carriageways because they underrate the level of hazard and risk on d/c's). Indeed, avoid being hit by the vehicle or any debris that comes off it on impact.

... a rare commodity on the road.

You make a good point. Whether they are safe/safer/less safe is simple maths, really. We need to take out emotions and ensure that any data analysis has validity and reliability at its core. i.e examine: How many died on motorways, before and after the introduction of “managed” and “smart”. What lane: hard shoulder or nearside running lane or any other running lane did the fatalities happen in? What were the root initial cause of the incidents: broken down, run out of fuel ... has the incidence of broken down etc stayed the same or changed? What was the alignment of the road at the crash site - I guess “straight”. Has there been a discernible change in figures since the introduction of “managed” and “smart”? Where were the casualties stood/sat? (Where would a public information campaign - if we ever went back to those days - want them to be?) More people die on the hard shoulder than in any other lane, so to think of them as safe havens is perverse. ... and probably a few more questions. Without this analysis, we are left with the emotive cliché, “smart m/w's aren’t that smart” (but, there again, neither are drivers). So, emotions aside, as a professional driver trainer I’d like to ask y’all: if you break down on a motorway (smart or otherwise), where would it be safest to stand? Out of the vehicle, clearly, and over the barrier but stood UPSTREAM, NEXT to the vehicle or DOWNSTREAM from the vehicle? Your choice makes a BIG difference.

You need to get out more. There are smart motorways (actual and built) down south as well.

... and an increase in your insurance, potentially. And you might learn something! (flak helmet on).

Must be right, then. .. it all depends, surely. Drivers just need to manage the distractions from whichever direction they come. What I’m sure about is that some drivers look upon hands-free as legal and, therefore, as safe when clearly it isn’t absolutely. This is recognised, pleasingly, by many of the drivers that I meet in my work. Those on here who haven’t yet recognised the risks of hands-free (visualisation, internalisation to name just two risky cognitive processes) are either brilliant, near-perfect drivers or in possession of less driving experience and a lot less self-awareness behind the steering wheel. I think I know which it is. The authorities are coming just now to deal with huge numbers of drivers talking hands-free with varying levels of additional distraction over and above kids, CD, radio, missus etc. Enforcement won’t work. Self-awareness and self-regulation coming from the drivers themselves will work.

I think someone is flying a kite here. I can’t think that it can or will ever be enforced however much I’d like it to be (with my work background). There are the usual well-worn arguments of kids in car and/or missus being more of a distraction. Yes, that’s possible - I know that from my work on NDIS/NDAC courses. The additional risk potential for distraction (on top of everything else) given by the explosion in the use mobile phones is what the authorities are having to tackle and they’ve come to realise, it seems, that in many respects holding a phone (without texting, FB’ing or emailing) is not particularly an issue for many drivers. It’s similar in risk to driving with one hand and, in most of my days at work, I don’t even mention that. It’s plainly the conversation that can distract at a far more dangerous level. (Distracted driving is one of the Police’s FATAL FOUR, let’s not forget.) What now needs to happen is a sensible discussion on what sort of conversations are most distracting (whether on the hone or in the car) since driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do regularly. I would venture that the most distracting of conversations involve a driver VISUALISING and INTERNALISING, processes that have been proven to reduce in depth and width a driver’s visual scans. Once a driver realises this, he/she is in a good position to decide to pull over and not have that distracting conversation whilst still driving. Self-regulation works better than law enforcement. What will happen most likely, though, is that with today’s headline news some more of my corporate clients will start thinking of joining the number of companies that have already banned all mobile phone conversations in their fleet.

Just saying that lots of contributors and the anti-camera brigade suggest that the authorities focus too much on speed ... and the same people bang on about speed and how too much, too little is viewed by them, by examiners etc. I was hoping that, one of these days, contributors to driving threads (“you’d fail your driving test if you did that...”) could initiate discussion about something different ... and the sample DL25 (L-test marking sheet) could be the starting point.

Not necessarily. It might just be marked as a driving fault. It depends on an interpretation from the examiner. I find it remarkable that, on such a forum, the context of a driving test failure comes up time and time again as down to use of speed when there are dozens of other ways you can fail (and many of these errors are committed by your average driver) but they are never mentioned. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dl25&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#imgdii=ejDU8AP7lrk6gM:&imgrc=PXVzvYIID53CXM:

Correction. It’s a training course. Approach it with an open mind and you might learn something from it (“every day is a school day”). Approach it with a closed mind and you will learn nothing - that’s fine if you reckon you are the world’s perfect driver and a know-it-all. Approach it with the attitude of a recalcitrant stroppy teenager, child-like and feign sleep (for example) ... and it’s a short road to get thrown off the course and get referred back to the Police (and you’ve paid for a course but you’ve still got the fine and points on your licence). Your choice.

You could argue that Boris was given more than ample opportunity to give his colourful, error- and gaffe-strewn past a light (his words) “sand-papering”. The things is, though, his past reveals far more deep-seated flaws so the sand-papering will achieve nothing in my mind at least, The two-faced, “sophisticated” band of MP’s who have said off-the-record “anyone but Boris” (and melted away) are spineless in their self-interest. And then you have the unrepresentative 160,000 who will still vote for him, it seems - interesting times. Trump with his 3-hour spray and quiff and Bozo’s “never been near a comb/brush” since the bullies at school kept stealing them. ... and, not forgetting, clever manipulation of alternative facts on both sides of the Pond. Then, it takes the Tories a month to choose between two candidates at the same time that someone expects to renegotiate the EU deal in just three months. Go figure and take a reality check.

Yes, I thought that as well. Anyhow, it’s funny how we perceive language and words. The “c” word has a place in the vernacular reserved, somehow, for the extreme and is rarely used relative to other swear words. To hear it on the BBC, was somehow extraordinary. In the BBC and other settings the words fanny and **** (tw@t - ironically edited out on SF) are more commonly used without giving anything like the level of “offence”, from my perspective, anyway. But it is precisely down to perspective and, maybe, regional differences. I’m from Norwich and, at one point I thought (stupidly) “****” was a made-up word, a mix-up if twit and prat. imagine my surprise when I uttered it in front of a Mancunian girlfriend years ago and received a slap across the face as a result of her understanding and perception of the word. Look up the word in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and you’ll understand its proper derivation. I’ve heard jokey use of the word on the BBC and no offence was caused, apparently. In the US, bum bags are fanny (not edited out on here) bags ...

On the other hand, you could go with an open mind and learn something. That’s what the courses are for.

No. Elsewhere, I read that the BBC economics and politics correspondents/Editor go easy on Conservative politicians and that the BBC is the “Establishment”. damned if they do and if they don’t, perhaps?

The lack of societal standards in all contexts is so very depressing and I feel for you and your dog. Solution? As individuals, we can only do what we can do. General littering is where this starts and is one of my many beefs. I deal with it and find some comfort in picking a handful of it up on every dog-walk and would recommend everyone to do it - pick it up! We missed the boat in not copying what Germans et al do i.e. make every householder/business owner clear up litter from and around their property. Standards have fallen. However drunk I was as a student, rugby player or yoof, I kept hold of wrappers, paper, trays, bottles until I found a bin or got home. Deliberate, mindless smashing of glass (or, close to me recently, setting fire to flammables in a bin or to construction equipment) is beyond the pale and frustratingly difficult to comprehend and battle against. Standards, boring standards lost in the mist of time. Authority is no longer given the respect it once had. We have all become cynical about local and national politicians and distrustful of the Police (on occasions); we are increasingly a secular society, kids no longer go to Sunday school to be told when and where to stand and sit down, when to sing, pray, listen. We seem to have lost our way.

Can we agree to drive and let drive? Is there any other choice? Chill and get on with whatever we are dealt - and that could be slow, hesitant, fast, aggressive drivers, the best and worst of humanity. The minute relatively unqualified drivers start judging and labelling others they are headed for palpitations and ulcers. The minute the most highly qualified drivers start judging and labelling others they are headed for palpitations and ulcers. Tempting as it is, there’s no point in becoming finger-wagging policeman or teacher.

How about positioning yourself proactively in the right hand lane as you go through the Handsworth junction (heading out of town) that involves an on-ramp with particularly limited sight lines for everyone? Or moving over proactively to the right hand lane prior to the upcoming lay-by because you spot an indicator or turning wheels way ahead in the lay-by? ”proactive” and “sensitive/considerate” to those around you. ”always” pull over?

Personally I see no real issue at this right turn into Greenhill Avenue - there are good sight lines for all even though the approach speed of opposing traffic might be a little higher than 30 - the thinking driver would probably perceive a need to lose a little speed (well in advance of the roundabout) on approach to the bollards at the end of Greenhill Ave that mark a generally busy junction. Professionally, I know that turning right, crossing others’ path, injudicious action, SMIDSY, driving with a time-pressed (rush-rush) agenda, mis-communication between road users, over-familiarity and complacency with a junction (etc) are all commonplace contributory factors to crashes. The OP suggests that this has happened multiple times before - I wasn’t aware of that. Maybe, then, SCC has a plan for this junction. Time will tell.