Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

...and the good news is.......I think they will all have disappeared within the next 20 years. I don't think self-driving cars will be the norm by then, but most of us will be driving around in vehicles with small, yet quite powerful, petrol engines. 
Now the good bit. I think all of these new cars will be connected to the internet, so traffic can be managed from a local server to avoid bottlenecks and, hence, queues. There are two ways of controlling this:
1) Your car will be told, by central control, not to exceed a certain speed, and you will not be able to override this. Or
2) If you do exceed the speed limit, your car will grass you up and you will automatically be sent a fine. No NIP necessary because you will have case to argue.
Good, eh?

Happy motoring.

[Varche]

Spot on.

Also no need to legislate for idiots using mobiles or facebook while driving.

The golden age of free and easy motoring has been and gone. I thought that when i was driving the A64 etc Scarborough to Leeds airport on Monday. Been stuck behind a huge lorry doing its speed limit, got on the dual carriageway and everyone overtook it by increasing their speed by one mph. Mobile speed van (on other side). So much traffic on ordinary roads impossible to overtake.

[Bigron]

Spee, per se, is not responsible for accidents; we all know what really is, but speed is easy to measure and collect revenue from. It is way too emotive an issue ever to be debated rationally for long as every other driver is going at the "WRONG" speed for you, either too slow or too fast!
As I've mooted before on here, there is a credible case for removing speed limits altogether and relying on common sense as to what is a safe speed for the road conditions and personal ability - except for BMW drivers, of course, who have magic eyes that can see through fog and other nasties so do not need to moderate their speed to cater for such adverse conditions.
Being serious, other than speed there is a panoply of other categories in varying degrees of severity (Dangerous, Reckless, Careless, etc) that could - and should - ensnare the idiots.
Don't crucify me for the above: I genuinely believe it could work, with certain caveats but it would require open minds on the part of officialdom.

As a footnote, road vehicular speed is the only area of transportation that attracts such disapprobation: in all other areas we celebrate speed (high speed rail links, faster planes, quicker ferries, etc) and are grateful for the shorter journey times.
Accidents involving non-passengers are rare - when did you jear of anyone stepping out in front of an in-flight plane without looking?
If people regarded roads as they do rivers and cross them only where it is safe to do so, i.e. bridges for rivers, controlled crossings for pedestrians, casualties would be dramatically reduced.
Instead of blaming motorists for each and every casualty/fatality, why not devote significant school time on roadcraft and respect for moving vehicles - it is an important life skill, after all, and what schools should be about.

Ron.

[Entwood]

Spee, per se, is not responsible for accidents; we all know what really is, but speed is easy to measure and collect revenue from. It is way too emotive an issue ever to be debated rationally for long as every other driver is going at the "WRONG" speed for you, either too slow or too fast!
As I've mooted before on here, there is a credible case for removing speed limits altogether and relying on common sense as to what is a safe speed for the road conditions and personal ability - except for BMW drivers, of course, who have magic eyes that can see through fog and other nasties so do not need to moderate their speed to cater for such adverse conditions.
Being serious, other than speed there is a panoply of other categories in varying degrees of severity (Dangerous, Reckless, Careless, etc) that could - and should - ensnare the idiots.
Don't crucify me for the above: I genuinely believe it could work, with certain caveats but it would require open minds on the part of officialdom.

As a footnote, road vehicular speed is the only area of transportation that attracts such disapprobation: in all other areas we celebrate speed (high speed rail links, faster planes, quicker ferries, etc) and are grateful for the shorter journey times.
Accidents involving non-passengers are rare - when did you jear of anyone stepping out in front of an in-flight plane without looking?
If people regarded roads as they do rivers and cross them only where it is safe to do so, i.e. bridges for rivers, controlled crossings for pedestrians, casualties would be dramatically reduced.
Instead of blaming motorists for each and every casualty/fatality, why not devote significant school time on roadcraft and respect for moving vehicles - it is an important life skill, after all, and what schools should be about.

Ron.

A slightly (?) unfair comparison methinks, very few members of the "general public" are allowed control of such methods of transportation, and those that do undergo training that can span several years. They are also examined, tested under different scenarios, supervised and monitored, and regulated on very short time scales to ensure their ability and practice has not declined. (I haven't even mentioned the requirements for medical and other screening)

Contrast that with a car driver who gets minimum training, over a total of hours not days, a cursory test once in 50 years under usually benign  conditions that does not even cover the high speed aspect of motorway driving but then gives permission for the newly qualified driver to undertake such actions unsupervised, with numerous distractions, in many different circumstances.

The "car" is seen as a status symbol, a mandatory requirement, and almost as a "right" ... it should, IMHO, be seen, and treated, as a lethal weapon. It is actually harder to get a shotgun licence than a driving licence, yet the number of people killed by one is far, far greater than those killed by drivers.

Speed itself does not kill, I accept that, but it is more often than not a factor, as the faster you are going the less time you have to react, and the greater the inertia of the vehicle .. both are simple statements of physics.

[Keith ABS]

Mandatory retesting of drivers every ten years should be the norm. There are to many knobs out there that believe that a driving licence is a right. It is not, its a privalage and should be treated as such.........IMO

Keith ABS

[Entwood]

Oops .. just spotted the error in my last post, and too late to edit it ..

should read ..

 "It is actually harder to get a shotgun licence than a driving licence, yet the number of people killed by one is far, far smaller than those killed by drivers."

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Mandatory retesting of drivers every ten years should be the norm. There are to many knobs out there that believe that a driving licence is a right. It is not, its a privalage and should be treated as such.........IMO

Keith ABS

YEp. My person thought on this (and has been for a while) is this, perhaps something that is akin to a CBT, or a passplus. It's basically sitting in a car and being watched by an instructor. You don't have to be perfect for one hour solid; fail and your license is torn up on front of you while you cry... not that, but basically drive around and the instructor can make observations when relevant. Anyone who claims a 'tune up' isn't necessary is probably, by definition, a bad driver. Personally I think it would be only a good thing.

[STEMO]

Mandatory retesting of drivers every ten years should be the norm. There are to many knobs out there that believe that a driving licence is a right. It is not, its a privalage and should be treated as such.........IMO

Keith ABS

YEp. My person thought on this (and has been for a while) is this, perhaps something that is akin to a CBT, or a passplus. It's basically sitting in a car and being watched by an instructor. You don't have to be perfect for one hour solid; fail and your license is torn up on front of you while you cry... not that, but basically drive around and the instructor can make observations when relevant. Anyone who claims a 'tune up' isn't necessary is probably, by definition, a bad driver. Personally I think it would be only a good thing.

Trouble is, the vast majority of 'knobs' would pass with flying colours. They are not incapable of good driving, just choose not to do it.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

That factor is there, it's true.