Bad Sheffield Drivers!

[Tomm06]

As for the speed limit argument, I do alot of countryside driving, and there's nothing more aggrovating than someone not going 60 when the limit is 60, apply this to every day life, you'd have a right go if someone infront was doing 10, and the limit is 30.

 

Other week, I was driving to a late night pharmacy, about 00:00, and I was driving home, along Bramall Lane, and a Taxi tried over taking me, realised he couldn't slammed the brakes on, and darted back in behind me.

[blackorchid]

Even though Im still generalising here, it does seem to be drivers in the larger, more expensive cars that act the worst! They seem to think they own the road just because they can afford an expensive car.

 

i agree totally

[DT Ralge]

And driving in such a way without good reason (poor conditions, observation/anticipation of a potential hazard) is a possible reason for failing a driving test. Failure to make progress or something like that (forget the exact wording).

 

I like it when the driving test is quoted as the gold standard against which poor driving is measured and it always seems to be "not making progress" that gets mentioned as above.

 

It never seems to be "driving too close", "failing to carry out effective observations", " "driving too fast for the conditions", "inappropriate speed on approach", "poor anticipation", "lack of planning", "late, missing, confusing or incorrect signals given", "failing to act on others' signals", "incorrect lane taken", "cutting corners" ... to say nothing of flagrant breaches of simple law (belts, lights in poor visibility, having a set of working bulbs, number plates, conforming to traffic lights road signs and road marking ...)

 

It is these faults (and a host of others) that would cause most of us to risk failing the same test today. Some on here would probably say "we know all those and on the day of a re-test we'd simply revert to doing all that and pass but the old duffers who don't make progress they wouldn't be able to change their ways." Could be true but that's a sad indictment on the quality of driving out there - often we know what we ought to be doing to avoid any associated risks but can't be bothered.

 

What we have to get used to is that, IF lack of progress and undue hesitancy is a feature of, say, the more senior elements (and other sections too) of our society (and I sat next to one such person yesterday) we are an ageing (driving) population and it will only get more noticeable - there are around 2 million over 70's on the roads today, a figure that will rise to 4.5 million in some 7-8 years. So getting wound up about it serves no purpose, we just have to get on with it and watch our own standard of driving a little closer since the L-test is not a gold standard it's only a test of basic competence.

Edited September 9, 2009 by DT Ralge

[Tess]

i agree totally

 

Me too. I'm not generalising all of them but some of them.. you would think they paid that much for the car, indicators would at least come included! I didn't know you had to buy them seperately...

[Annaliese]

I feel the same Tess, well done, drives me wild not indicating

[Squiggs]

I like it when the driving test is quoted as the gold standard against which poor driving is measured and it always seems to be "not making progress" that gets mentioned as above.

 

It never seems to be "driving too close", "failing to carry out effective observations", " "driving too fast for the conditions", "inappropriate speed on approach", "poor anticipation", "lack of planning", "late, missing, confusing or incorrect signals given", "failing to act on others' signals", "incorrect lane taken", "cutting corners" ... to say nothing of flagrant breaches of simple law (belts, lights in poor visibility, having a set of working bulbs, number plates, conforming to traffic lights road signs and road marking ...)

 

 

There was no need to mention those since my post was a direct response to a part of the discussion relating to driving slowly, one poster insisting there was nothing wrong with it (regardless of condition)

 

The things you mention would indeed be reasons to fail a test, but are completely irrelevant to this particular element of the discussion

[DT Ralge]

There was no need to mention those since my post was a direct response to a part of the discussion relating to driving slowly, one poster insisting there was nothing wrong with it (regardless of condition)

 

The things you mention would indeed be reasons to fail a test, but are completely irrelevant to this particular element of the discussion

 

Ouch.

My post was intended to widen the debate a little but I guess you are right, my encouragement of a wider discussion of what constitutes bad driving is irrelevant to the tabloid many who only have the vaguest of ideas as to what constitutes skilled driving.

[Squiggs]

And mine was a response to a particular, singular point within that discussion.

 

There lying the difference.

[Eater Sundae]

Does anyone know if a driver has EVER been done for travelling at 40 in a 60 zone?

 

Anyone? If not, why do people still flag this up as being an issue?

[Eater Sundae]

Yesterday afternoon. The driver on Hagg Hill (from Rivelin Valley towards Crosspool) who stopped at the top of Hagg Hill - handbrake on - look both ways - then set off, despite being on the major road. Later, the same driver at the top of Stephen Hill, turning right onto Manchester Road, but without positioning to the centre of the road - thus holding up the traffic behind waiting to turn left.