Safe Speed Forums

yesterday i was heading along a straight SC A road at 60 MPH (as per the NSL limit) when some old woman pulled out from the right about 70 yards in front of me. she then did the usual dithering around not going anywhere fast and as there was oncoming traffic, my only option was to slam the anchors on rather than my normal course of evasive action which would be a smooth overtake with my horn going. somehow i have perfected this since i moved to this area as pulling out is common
fortunately i had spotted her before this course of events began and i treat any vehicle at the side of the road or at a junction waiting to join as a potential hazard anyway and evidently, with good reason!
is it time for older drivers to have periodic assessments as the voluntary retiring of their licence is clearly not working? how can they judge when their own standards have slipped below an acceptable level?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Good man, probably saved you a lot of hassle in insurance, repairs etc.



I seem to remember this being brought up more than once on here when looking through the old posts, there might have even been something in the news about it semi recently.

It's bit of a double edged sword though.

I'm sure a search would probably bring them up.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

I believe picking on the old would be ageist, but I do think everyone should take a short retest every decade.

While I think forcing old people to re-take a full driving test would be a step too far, I would support a regular assessment from the age of say 75 onwards (my understanding is that you already have to re-apply when you're 70, perhaps a medical could be introduced as well) to ascertain that one is "competent to drive".

Had one yesterday, didn't cause me any more problems than an unwanted delay, old guy about 80 driving a Kia, caught up with him on the B4060 at Bournstream and due to oncoming traffic was stuck behind him at 25mph all the way into the town, then at 15mph all the way through the 30 limit.

While that occasion wasn't so much dangerous as just annoying, I've seen a lot of elderley drivers who [i]are[/a] dangerous as their observation skills have fallen and their reaction times (and by implication their ability to anticipate) have suffered.

Of course I'm not saying "get them all off the road" - just that more senior drivers should be assessed for competence, for their own safety as much as everyone else's.

_________________
Magistrates rule #1: "Never let justice get in the way of a conviction."

i dont agree with mandatory re-tests for anyone. assessments are different though but that wasnt what i was thinking either. i meant from a medical perspective. HGV drivers must take a medical every 5 years (at their own expense of up to around £100) from the age of 45 and while i think that may be too young for a normal car driver, i think it may be time to introduce medicals for older drivers from retirement age. while i do not wish to turn this into a truckers issue, indeed i was driving my car at the time, i do think it should be acknowledged that while they may not be driving a truck, their actions could quite easily cause a problem for a trucker. a case of this very thing did occur 3 years or so ago on the A36 near southampton where an old man pulled out of a side road into the path of a truck and that section had not long had speed cameras installed, possibly a reduction in speed limit too if i remember correctly. the trucker was not at fault and that was concluded at the scene! the old person had stopped, hesitated then for some reason decided to pull out with a truck coming!
i know ageism is worth considering but what is more important, being politically correct or acting on what is a relevant problem regarding road safety? there are times when political correctness should step back in favour of a greater precedence!

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Tricky. Me and Wildy have always suggested a periodic test of some sorts -- Highway Code check might be one on-line way forward?


Yes.. you have to re-apply when aged 70 and I think you then have to keep on doing so every 5 years. You have to declare any illness and GP is supposed to notify if he or she's "seriously concerned over health and mental states"

Swiss do have a medical. Wildy's parents are over here as you all know. Personal comment warning! (Actually they've been quite a "godsend" despite some arguments between them and my wife over "her defiant nature" They've decided to stay on until our move abroad to help us "close up the house and do all the boring stuff involved")


Back to topic and roughly regurgitated from "Paps-in-law"

Swiss elderly have to have eye teat/hearing test/reflex test and routine medical once they reach 70 years and every 5 years thereafter "if in good health". If they fall ill - doctors examine carefully and if they think their patient "unfit to drive a car" - they recommend and even notify the authorities.

I can advise my patients not to drive. In extreme cases .. I CAN notify DVLA over their condition if they refuse to heed my advice and I judge them to be quite dangerous to others If and only IF driving in my own professional opionion and supported by a second medical opinion at same level of expertise as myself in our field of medicine. Have I had to exercise this "power"? - if you can call it that? Just twice in the past so far.... and yes . .it WAS in the best interests of the patient and everyone else.

I would advise folk to listen to their bodies and be in control of themselves. My own wife is having to do this at the moment still as she still gets some rather severe "twinges" from time to time if she "over-extends herself". My wife's very upset about all this as you can all understand perhaps.. but there's no way she would drive if even feeling slighly unwell because of what happened to her in the past.





Nowt wrong with 25 mph in a 30 mph. I know one 88 year old who could be said to have "died of shock" after getting a NIP at 35 mph. A fellow surgeon's Mum. He had another NIP on the day of her funeral too.. which would have brought her to "tot -up". SAME fixed cam but the old lady did not know what they were or how they worked.. and she'd always driven on that road at "around 34 mph-ish" Her NIPS were in the heady days of the 35 mph cut off for Lancs.. she has two 35 mph and three 34 mph .. all on the pesky Blackpool "gauntlet run" on the road with the windmill.


I think our current elderly are a lot more "with-it" than that very gentle and genteel lady back in 2003. Maybe he just was not sure if a van lurked and decided to "play it way too safe" It's just a thought based on the character of my mate's mum as I know and fondly remember her. ( Explanatory note ---- We trained together... she used to be a "second mum" to me when I was a student and me and my buddy moved from St Andrews to Manchester (his home town )



Yes .. and this is where COAST comes into play .. especially where C= Consideration

You look at the age .. you risk assess accordingly.. are aware of "traits" as you describe here?




No. I agree. Swiss have the right idea. I just wonder if some are "Gatso wary"

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

i think you might have misread that one fella

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I admit to reading with Lukas/Andy and Racheal leaping at me

I tend to lok at the condition and swallow hard .. adjust accordingly.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Now ,I'm not the youngest member on site , but the number of times I find young drivers doing this -they look and fail to judge my speed -perhaps I'm experienced enough to expect this sort of treatment that I manage to avoid these young idiots . So perhaps we need refresher courses for the young ,say five years after passing a test( YOUNG KID ACCROSS ROAD - now on car no four - last three hit some sort of bollard -nuff said ) .But then , been in a car with my youngest - she errs on the side of safety . But then she's got car licence and CBT .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Think there was some research done on approach speeds to junctions which showed that certain speeds of approaching vehicles were more likely to have someone pull out. For some reason I think doing 30 towards another car meant the driver was less likely to pull out than if you were approaching faster! There is also the looming effect of vehicles approaching at certain angles which makes them harder to see and also big fat A pillars.

Had some chump in an octavia do this to me the other week. He followed someone else out then dawdled. Well till I was suddenly really close and he did the 'where did that come car from' twitch then had the decency to boot his stinking diesel to a reasonable speed. If you drop back too soon these chumps won't learn and will do the same trick in front of an HGV and learn the hard way about judging speed. My driving instructor told me that if you did pull out with insufficient gap then you should make sure you accelerate briskly to reduce the amount by which you slow down the other person. I've had the odd person wave as they have pulled out clearly realising there was insufficient gap. I don't mind this as much as at least they have realised. It's the ignorant mimsers that pull out slowly then dawdle well under a reasonable speed then start blocking overtakes that really wind me up. I make the effort not to get in other people's way so they should too.

Interesting, I wonder what psychological/neurological reason there is for that, do you remember if that was just in 30mph limits or general?


Not that I do not have the same desire, but what happens if they brake test you or really have to brake for something you do not see? I had a car pull out on a roundabout and I had to brake hard to avoid him (got to less than a foot away) as he started to pull away and the gap opened to 5-6 ft I came off the brakes to minimise the chance of being rear-ended. The idiot then slammed his brakes on and I ran into the back of him, the insurance came out in my favour eventually two years later after threatening to take him to court. In this case I was not even trying to prove a point and got caught out so on the whole I try hard not to give in to the temptation, after all in their minds it is probably your fault for going too fast anyway so it does not teach them anything.



The problem is many seem to have been taught that a 'sufficient gap' is one just big enough to allow the approaching car to brake enough not to hit you.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Sorry I've been so long to put my 2d on this one recently.

In the case of a vehicle entering from a side road pulling out into your path where lifting off is not good enough to avoid either collision or a too-close-for-comfort-even-if-on-a-transient-basis distance, you need to assess (and with COAST probably already have done) whether it is sensible and safe to pass the vehicle that pulled out to avoid braking or not. If not, braking early is better than late every time to keep the rate of deceleration as low as reasonably practicable and to not get closer - even on a transient basis - than you are - or should be - comfortable with. It derisks what could turn out to appear as a road rage incident to onlookers who did not see the original misdemeanour.

As for approach speeds that are more likely to prevent people from pulling out... I think it is about demeanour of approach and "ownership" of the carriageway. I tend to be closer to the crown of the road than most when travelling on the main road and there are minor road(s) on my left. It gives mutually improved visibility. I even do this to an extent with crossroads and minor roads on my right too (but of course being prepared to chink left if anything is going to appear at the minor road on my right that might be intending to turn left). In addition to the generally improved visibility, much reduced chance of grazing or running over gutter obstacles, precious extra time to deal with animals emerging from left side hedges etc, what you absolutely do by adopting this technique is establish to any others catching a fleeting glimpse that you are "road hogging". Of course, you have to fall back to the "text book" position smoothly but starting as soon as something is coming towards you (15 seconds plus before the meeting point) to allay any fear in that road user's mind that you may be out of control). However, in such a situation (you approaching a junction and something coming towards you), you will instinctively have recognised the increased hazard density, and have EITHER scrubbed off speed and be covering the brake (may even have taken up the slack in the brake hydraulics if there is any), so as to be going slow enough to deal with a puller outer if it happens before the meeting point with the oncoming car, and to have ensured where possible that the car coming toward you is passed the junction before you get to it giving you extra choices if one pulls out) OR - have given the loud pedal a small extra burst, hanging outto the crown for a second or two longer, before covering the brake and pulling back to "text book" position, ensuring you arrive at the junction jn ample time BEFORE the one coming towards you arrives at it. In this way you have the extra degree of freedom. In either situation you have controlled your arrival at the junction to not have an oncoming car to deal with at the same time.

I'd pretty much agree with this. I drive more towards the crown than the gutter.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I find being followed by someone driving on the centre line rather irritating, probably because I use my right mirror a lot. I have the uncontrollable urge to move to the right as well but I fight it.

I always assumed it was a form of impatient driving rather than a safety thing.

I was assuming I was front marker in all the above. If there is a car or stream of cars in front, a lot of the options are out of the window (eg, speeding up to avoid one coming toward you being alongside at a junction).

If we add a car or cars in front into the equation, I tend to take a position on the road of best visibilty. In the absence of junctions, if the lead man/one in front of me is crowning, that's left side, if not, it's crowning. BUT - back a LONG way - you'd not see my stance/posture as aggressive and it would not trouble you for right mirror glances. If a junction is in the offing - within the next 20 secs or so - I'd fall in line behind the one in front of me - ie if he's crowning I'd crown etc - still a long way back - to avoid - or at least lessen - the risk of being obfuscated by you to any emergent vehicle that may appear or be waiting.

If you moved to the right (not resisting your "urge"), I would casually - not aggressively - drift to the left. We'd then both be happy

Improves the forward visibility, especially if it is a van that you are following

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

While decreasing the visibility of the car behind.

Yeah. Life's a bitch

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Forward visibility is more important (obviously). The main worries about what's behind, in approximately descending order, is if someone is too close to you (risk of collision if you have to brake hard), someone coming up the outside of traffic (eg a filtering motor bike or emergency vehicle), or one too close to the one behind you and he not havingh increased his following distance to compensate for that error.

If you want to overtake but have limited rear visibility thanks to someone too close to you and exacerbated by his right quarters being outside of yours by a fair bit, hang way back and accelerate hard, chinking a tad right but staying your side of the road, when a forward-clear opportunity is emerging. You will then have good rear visibility before committing to the overtake which you can comfortably abort having only lost a traspoon or two of fuel if there is a fastard coming up from behind.

OK ... COAST applies as always

However, the folk pulling out? As teabelly suggests - some may not have looked out carefully ..taking account of anything which can cause a SMIDSY


Last night . Ted's sister Jazz picked us from the airport and was most unamused when I ordered her to pull over and then redesigned her dash board for her She had left tickets for Pay/Display all over the dash.. had her sat nav just a little in the way // so I rewired it all Then continued.

I will say her driving is smooth, steady and never moves above the speed limit... all the same. Drives to COAST standards and very vigilant... but typical woman Bit of a muppet when it comes to the blinkin' obvious on fitting useful gadgets in her car... I think we made her nervous as well.

We got back to her place and gave that car a full "valet service" ./.. ye gods. I even found a really old mobile phone at the bottom of a tool kit in the boot

She blamed the maiden aunt she looks after ..teaching work loads.. magistrate timetable ... and current building site going on in her bathroom/kitchen following a fire caused by the maiden aunt! for "not having time to give cars TLC per Wild pedantry on the subject"

My point ? A tidy car does help concentration .. especially the dash. That must be kept free of all distracting clutter. I found I was fixated on this .. as her passenger. That's why cars are failing MOTS on Sat nav cradling positions these days. But the worrying factor is that no one advises as to where best to position the darned thing!


Folk misjudge speeds as well.. or they do not have the skills to judge and nor the handling skills to accelerate away to blend into the traffic if they "take a chance" There are plenty of these types - across the age range


Yes.. road positiioning helps ... but if you are following in normal traffic flow .. then you should not be tailgating and thus should be visible to Johnny in all his mirrors The distance gives a better depth of field as regards vision .. and makes overtakes .. safer as a result. But if you are flowing along nicely .. do you really need to overtake?

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.