Safe Speed Forums

That's fair enuf then, all I'm going off is what my instructor told me when I did mine. You have to admit though, it has to be an improvement on just letting some spotty little 16 year old with no road experience, no theory test and no training loose on the road on his own...


And there is the crux of the problem - those car drivers who are not paying attention or giving a flying f*** about anything that's happening around them.

I have the advantage of my 650 twin being old enough to be exempt from BS stamping on the exhausts... Its louder than your average harley. I've given one or two surprises myself...


I guess that was kind of the point of the thread in a roundabout way. Its not like I think I have all the answers, but I'm sure there has to be more the DfT can do to improve the standards of newly qualified drivers...


Which is prime argument for subsequent and regular re-assessment of all drivers at all levels. We all get into bad habits, and more often than not we may not even realise that our standards are slipping.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Should people have to use a motorcycle before being allowed to drive a car?

Simple answer Yes

Having been a cyclist as a kid riding to places as far apart as the City of London and Southend on Sea (with the odd excursion to Dartford and Gravesend through the tunnel}) before going on to get my 1st "X" reg bike, new, on which I travelled all over the south of England and into South wales (from home in Essex), I can confirm the following:

I understand how the weather can impede my braking ability (wet roads, greasy roads, leaves on roads, oil {diesel} on roads. I understand about the wind literally blowing me even in a car into a different lane....

I drive on the gearbox rather than the brakes: I am nearly always in the right gear at the right time - both up and down through the box. A benefit from this is that my tyres usually give me 30,000 miles or more and I have had brake shoes and pads last 100,000 miles.

From experience, I realise how hard the road surface is, how much it hurts if you hit it, how some other arsehole can put you in all sorts of trouble. I learnt how to be the biggest 'wanker' imagineable: If others want to race - let them get on with it; there is a long queue to the cemetary, if they want to jump it that's their prerogative, etc.

Riding a motorcycle has made me the driver I still am today - aware and alert; and understanding of my (and my vehicle's) limitations.

I don't think we can 'require' all new drivers to have a spell on a motorbike, and there's some reason to believe that getting inexperienced folk (with underdeveloped hazard perception) onto bike would be quite dangerous.

I almost like the idea that the terminally stupid would claim the darwin award at an early stage in their driving career, but - come on - we can't do that!

It might be possible to increase the minimum age differential. Perhaps if the car driving age was 18 then we'd see more 'natural' take up on bikes for new (powered) road users.

But I think the motorbike idea is really a bit of a red herring. It's the wrong answer to the question: How do we get driver skills up?

I think the right answers are all over this site, but I'm especially interested in the ideas in this thread:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=991

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'd hope that by setting the bar higher we'd end up with better trained drivers, though I know that's not exactly what I said earlier on. What I was thinking was that raised standards in the L test would, I believe, still be within reach of the vast majority. Despite my throwaway remark about failing everyone who doesn't make the grade I'd actually expect that there really wouldn't be many more of these than there are already. Instead everyone else would have met a higher standard before being able to chuck their L plates. As an analogy, for those of us who remember the BAGA gymnastic stuff in PE at school, I think all you had to do to get BAGA1 was a forward roll and a backwards roll (or something like that). I'm saying that most who could have done that could probably have done a cartwheel as well, so why not raise the standard to include it?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I'm actually in favour of a limited number of tests too (althought I'm not sure how it would be enforced). I'm sure we all remember Maurine from Driving School, who passed on something like her 15th attempt. Now she was NEVER safe behind the wheel, and no amount of training or experience is going to change that.

If we gave people a maximum number of tests, or even a maximum within a given time span (and yes, the 2 year limit on a provisional does go some way to acheiving this) then the really bad ones who were, lets face it, never going to pass would have to give up, and would not be able to fluke their way through.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Simple answer... no.



Cars aren't endowed with magic brakes or tyres that make them immune to the effects of a slippery road surface, and as a pedestrian I'm also well aware of the detrimental effects of leaves/ice/diesel on available grip.



I've never been in wind strong enough to blow the car I was driving completely into the next lane, but know about the effects of a strong head/cross/tailwind on vehicle performance.



I currently drive an auto so gear selection is more or less out of my hands now, but I still try to avoid touching the brakes in normal driving (and in a big heavy auto with no engine braking and a seemingly inexhaustible ability to keep on rolling long after you've lifted off the gas, that's even harder to achieve than in a small manual with so much engine braking you feel like you've hit a brick wall the moment you lift off), and my car driving instructor was very VERY insistent on me learning about correct gear selection from an early stage in my lessons.




Granted, that's not something you can learn just through car driving, but neither is it something you can only learn through motorbiking. The question was raised earlier whether this thread was referring to pedal bikes as well as motorbikes, and I think it's an important point to raise. In my earlier years I cycled on a daily basis - to and from uni and around the city and surrounding area on sightseeing trips - and the ONE time I ended up parting company with my bike was exactly how many times I needed to learn that I never wanted it to happen again. I wasn't even injured, beyond a slight graze and some bruising, but the sudden transition from riding along quite happily to being dumped on the hard unyielding ground was what taught me the lesson, not whatever pain and suffering was caused as a consequence.




I couldn't agree more, yet I never went - at least not deliberately or knowingly - through the "being a wanker" stage in order to feel like this. To me it's just pure common sense and self-preservation, I don't need to have experienced what it's like to be the driver inside a badly driven car to know that I want to keep as big a distance as possible between myself and anyone who does drive like that.




If it's worked for you, then brilliant - that's one more driver on the roads who's got safety in mind. But there are other ways for drivers to achieve the same level of awareness and alertness, learning to ride a motorbike isn't the only option, nor should it be forced on anyone.

I very much doubt it, as the hazard perception test does not include mirrors at all.

Mirrors are the most important thing for a driver where motorbikes are concerned, because we are usually overtaking you.

Shade
Biker ffs.

Fair point. The hazard perception test was introduced way after I passed so I've never seen it. You're probably right about the importance of mirrors when spotting motorbikes. Certainly I tend to see 'em first either in the offside door mirror overtaking traffic behind me, or in the interior mirror as a single light some way back. But in relation to SMIDSYs and the possible visual obstruction of bikers caused by a car's A pillar, the only thing I can do is to move my head about to see round the A pillar. I think that's an important habit for a car driver to develop, and not one I recall being taught.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Lets take it back all the way.

Why not make a cycle proficiency test a prerequisite for all provisional licences.

Make schools to set aside time for the lessons, say three course per school per year.

No need to burden teachers, the SCP budget could be directed to providing trainers and equipment rather than scamming the law abiding motorists.

You can sit it at any time, if you're passed school age then you can join in at your local school.

theory and practical, highway code, hazard awareness etc etc.

My g/f, victim of a couple of SMIDSYs, has recently started driving lessons. She was amazed as the restriction in visibilty by the A pillars, and is now

a) a bit more understanding of drivers
b) hopefully going to be more defensive in her riding.

People by nature follow the path of least resistance, and therefore will not put themselves, unless they are natuarlly safety concious.

You cannot force people to check blindspots.

I have no answer to this dangerous situation.

I've long said that once a person has gained a pass in a car, before they get their full licence, they should spend a day each on a motorbike, bus and an artic.
In the morning, driving the said vehicle on private land, such as the Verkehrubungsplatz, Driver Training place, they have in Germany.

Afternoon, out on the road.
On the back of the motorbike, to find out why they become invisible.

On the bus by the driver, to find out why they need to be able to use a bus layby without cars parked in them, this would also cover a rigid truck.

In an Artic, to find out why they can't accelerate like a Ferrari when loaded, why they pull appatently stupid manouvres, like taking corners wide and so on.
I'm sure some hauliers and training schools would be only too pleased to take this on.

Once those three certificates are held, then they can be sent off with their car pass certificate to get their full licence.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

It astounds me why all the things Dratsabasti mentions aren't fairly obvious to most drivers just by looking. Okay, maybe not so much the motorbike bit, but any driver who's been scared a few times by a biker apparently appearing from nowhere ought to be thinking "hang on, there's a pattern here". The penny should drop not long after. Bus laybys... well since most of them are bus sized the inconvenience caused by parking in one is about as obvious as it's possible to be. Besides, I think when a bus can't get into the layby it's usually because of another bus. Everybody knows that you have to wait ages before two or three arrive at once . The limitations of HGVs, especially when cornering, should be almost as clear to anyone who takes a minute to think about it.

I suppose either common sense ain't that common, or more likely common courtesy ain't that common any more.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

With regard to artics, my other half drives em for a living. I'd been driving a while before I met him and I can tell you, I learned so much from spending a couple of weekends out with him in the passenger seat.

Common sence ain't, full stop. Most people don't stop and think about anything. A bloke I used to know when I lived in manchester decided (at 50) that he was going to start riding a bike. Two days after his test he decided that it would be a great idea to go up the left of the car and caravan that was in the right hand side of the road indicating left...from memory, this is one of the first things they teach on CBT. Unfortunately I never got to see him to take the pi$$! Seriously though, if it'd been an artic he would probably have been dead.

I like Dratsabasti's suggestion actually.

The biggest thing I realised when I went out in the artic was that when an artic is 'bent' the driver can't actually see ANYTHING behind - one mirror is pointing at the side of the trailer, and the other is usually obscured by the trailer headboard (obviously not the case for flatbeds). NO amount of stopping and thinking is going to make something like that obvious.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

No amount of pillion will teach you what it is like to ride a bike.

£100 quid CBT, it covers the roads, should be more than enough to teach people to be more aware of bikes.

Only trouble is they are on 125s, and don't teach you about the bikes coming out of nowhere side of things, only what it feels like to have a car up your arse.

Might help with tailgaiting.

I sometimes wonder if the "if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you" signs on the back of many HGVs aren't causing as many problems as they solve - in situations like you mention here, plus numerous other combinations of HGV-other vehicle positioning, it's quite possible for the other driver to have a clear view of the HGV mirrors yet still remain totally invisible to the HGV driver.

Can't argue with that one Twister, but what the sign DOES do is stop the muppet from driving 2ft off the tailboard of the trailer, like I saw someone doing in a Volvo yesterday. There's absolutely no way that the driver of the HGV could have seen him....all it would take is a missed gearshift by the HGV driver.....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Well, really! If a driver is going to miss a gear shift, should such a dangerous lunatic really be on our roads?

Oh yeah, I don't doubt that they're useful reminders to muppets like that. I just think that muppets who consider tailgating a HGV to be a sensible idea are the same sort of people who're also likely to take the signs exactly at their word, and then end up getting into even more dangerous situations (like running up the inside of an HGV as it's trying to take a corner) thinking that "I can see the mirrors, so the driver MUST be able to see me".

Hell, even sensible drivers who'd never consider running close enough to the back end of a trailer to read off the serial number from the makers plate, might be fooled into thinking that they'll be safe so long as they can see the mirrors - as you said yourself, it wasn't until you had some experience of being in the HGV cab that you realised just how poor rearward visibility is during certain maneouvres.

Yes shade I have enough trouble with 5 of em sometimes...try 16!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Must agree with you , Twister, pity they don't think it applies to vehicles that don't have a sign - most of the larger vans fall into that category - Transit / MERC / etc - I drive one of these at work and rear ward visibility is better on the HGV than on these - yet i still get bikes / cars dissapearing into the bit at the back, and with a small fraction of its rated weight these vans can stop very quick