Gobsmacked

[Nick Kew]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Hearns
> ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know about the exact history of automobiles, but I would guess
>>there were a good few years with no driving tests before 'the authorities'
>>recognized that people were being killed and injured so brought in the
>>driving test.
>
>
> Compulsory testing for all new drivers was introduced in the UK in 1935.
>
> <URL:http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Category.asp?cat=343>
>

Counterexample - my father, who got his driving license in the war
without ever taking a test (he was too young to be recruited to fight,
but old enough to get to do something useful at home).

As far as the authorities are concerned, he can still drive now,
though he hasn't done so for many (20-ish?) years. I guess people
like him[1] serve to inflate the numbers of drivers supposedly
clamouring for better treatment ...

[1] and indeed me, though I do still occasionally drive.
Most recently a white van when I moved house in March.

--
not me guv

 

[David Martin]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Hearns
> ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > I don't know about the exact history of automobiles, but I would guess
> > there were a good few years with no driving tests before 'the authorities'
> > recognized that people were being killed and injured so brought in the
> > driving test.
>
> Compulsory testing for all new drivers was introduced in the UK in 1935.

Which still leaves a small number of people driving legally who have
never passed a test. Most would be in their 90's (though theoretically
anyone above 16 could[1] qualify).

...d

[1] That is could, not would.

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
>
> Which still leaves a small number of people driving legally who have
> never passed a test. Most would be in their 90's (though theoretically
> anyone above 16 could[1] qualify).
>

And a lot more driving illegally who have never passed their test.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Matt B]

wafflycat wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1671578,00.html
[...]
> I have sent a response to Matt Seaton: -
>
> "..."

Most of which applies equally to the argument for abolishing driving
tests for motorists, which, even though they were introduced for similar
reasons seventy years ago, have not eradicated "bad driving".

Even the danger element is comparable, given bicycling accounts for less
than 1% of the annual passenger mileage in the UK each year, and that
only a fraction of the annual RTCs each year have a car driver as the cause.

I feel a letter to the Guardian coming on ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
David Martin ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> Dave Larrington wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, John Hearns
> > ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know about the exact history of automobiles, but I would guess
> > > there were a good few years with no driving tests before 'the authorities'
> > > recognized that people were being killed and injured so brought in the
> > > driving test.
> >
> > Compulsory testing for all new drivers was introduced in the UK in 1935.
>
> Which still leaves a small number of people driving legally who have
> never passed a test. Most would be in their 90's (though theoretically
> anyone above 16 could[1] qualify).

There's probably a few more than one might, since I'm pretty sure there
was some kind of exemption for those who learned to drive in the
military - they weren't required to take a "civilian" test as well.

OTOH, in the days before the European Union, those who had passed a test
elsewhere were still required to do a BRITONS' test here on taking up
residence. My late mother, having been driving all over Europe and
north Africa for a Several of years, was more than somewhat miffed to
fail at her first attempt at a UK test...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Frozen gorillas can be used to control the temperature of a warm and
stuffy room.

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> Even the danger element is comparable, given bicycling accounts for less
> than 1% of the annual passenger mileage

Not if you compare like for like, ie compare roads where both cycles
and cars can legally travel. Then the proportion of people killed by
cyclists is much lower.

And per journey the differences are much greater still.

> in the UK each year, and that
> only a fraction of the annual RTCs each year have a car driver as the cause.

Stupid statement. Only a fraction of the annual RTC's do not have a
falling tree as the cause.

...d

 

[elyob]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1671578,00.html
>
> The last paragraph.
>
> "Cyclists rightly want more measures and facilities in their favour, but
> as these rights are granted, it is time to accept some responsibility.
> Pedestrians and other road users deserve considerate, safe cyclists.
> Because civil servants so long made cyclists second-class citizens by
> planning roads that in effect designed us out of the system, we have
> acquired a tremendous sense of self-righteous entitlement - even to behave
> badly. It's really time we got over it. Taking a test would show we have."

I heard a small commotion behind me as I walked to the pub last night, and
basically saw a cyclist flying along, coming off the main roundabout in
Surbiton into St James Road. A ped was half way across the road (perhaps not
paying attention enough to see the bike travelling at 20mph). But thinking
about this incident later, if there had been contact I would have heavily
leaned on the cyclist being at fault. He was travelling far too fast for the
area, was unable to stop for a 'normal incident' and looked like he was a
regular cyclist (reasonably well equiped for commuting).

I've once had a come together with a ped, which I put the blame on both of
us (possibly 55% her), but this was 100% the cyclist being irresponsible and
dangerous.

So, to no-one in particular, please remember that when peds are already on
the road it's up to you to stop.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Dave Larrington:
> There's probably a few more than one might, since I'm pretty sure there
> was some kind of exemption for those who learned to drive in the
> military - they weren't required to take a "civilian" test as well.

My aunt Sheila, for one; she learnt to drive during WWII, and was never
obliged to take a civilian test. She's lately given up driving, though,
due to advancing age; there can't be many such drivers left.


--
Mark, UK.

better !pout !cry
better watchout
lpr why
santa_claus < north_pole >town

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
([email protected]) wrote:
> Response to Dave Larrington:
> > There's probably a few more than one might, since I'm pretty sure there
> > was some kind of exemption for those who learned to drive in the
> > military - they weren't required to take a "civilian" test as well.
>
> My aunt Sheila, for one; she learnt to drive during WWII, and was never
> obliged to take a civilian test. She's lately given up driving, though,
> due to advancing age; there can't be many such drivers left.

The father of one of my schoolmates learned to drive during his National
Service and he hadn't taken a test in civvy street either. He'd
probably be in his early seventies now, but I suppose it's conceivable
that there are some people who did likewise and have yet to turn 60.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
May you have an accident shaped like an umbrella.

 

[Alex Potter]

Dave Larrington wrote on Wednesday 21 December 2005 15:13:

> The father of one of my schoolmates learned to drive during his
> National
> Service and he hadn't taken a test in civvy street either. He'd
> probably be in his early seventies now, but I suppose it's conceivable
> that there are some people who did likewise and have yet to turn 60.
>
Unlikely - I'm 59 and missed National Service by a couple of years...
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>Even the danger element is comparable, given bicycling accounts for less
>>than 1% of the annual passenger mileage
>
> Not if you compare like for like, ie compare roads where both cycles
> and cars can legally travel. Then the proportion of people killed by
> cyclists is much lower.

It is like with like. A journey is a journey. The fact that cars can
use motorways or buses can use bus lanes or cycles can use cycle paths
does not affect the number of passenger miles and the number of
accidents per passenger mile. It only limits who/what else you might
collide with.

> And per journey the differences are much greater still.

So if I travelled on a 500 mile journey in my car with no incident you
think that is no more significant than cycling on a 100 yard journey
with no incident?

>>in the UK each year, and that
>>only a fraction of the annual RTCs each year have a car driver as the cause.
>
> Stupid statement. Only a fraction of the annual RTC's do not have a
> falling tree as the cause.

Yes, what I meant to convey was that, contrary to the way that the
figures are often portrayed, the figures are for RTCs of /all/ causes,
not just those where the cause is bad car driving. i.e. it in not valid
to claim 3500 deaths per year are the fault of car drivers.

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >>Even the danger element is comparable, given bicycling accounts for less
> >>than 1% of the annual passenger mileage
> >
> > Not if you compare like for like, ie compare roads where both cycles
> > and cars can legally travel. Then the proportion of people killed by
> > cyclists is much lower.
>
> It is like with like. A journey is a journey.

Then why not compare by number of journeys if all journeys are
equivalent?
If you start to look at urban miles then cars begin to look more
dangerous.

> The fact that cars can
> use motorways or buses can use bus lanes or cycles can use cycle paths
> does not affect the number of passenger miles and the number of
> accidents per passenger mile. It only limits who/what else you might
> collide with.

Precisely, so it doesn't compare like with like. Even though cars
travel on the supposedly safest bits of the road network, they are
still implicated in 98% or higher of road casualties.

> > And per journey the differences are much greater still.
>
> So if I travelled on a 500 mile journey in my car with no incident you
> think that is no more significant than cycling on a 100 yard journey
> with no incident?
Only if you travel on the same kind of roads. Otherwise you have to
look at the nature of th etraffic and rate the danger accordingly.

> >>in the UK each year, and that
> >>only a fraction of the annual RTCs each year have a car driver as the cause.
> >
> > Stupid statement. Only a fraction of the annual RTC's do not have a
> > falling tree as the cause.
>
> Yes, what I meant to convey was that, contrary to the way that the
> figures are often portrayed, the figures are for RTCs of /all/ causes,
> not just those where the cause is bad car driving. i.e. it in not valid
> to claim 3500 deaths per year are the fault of car drivers.

60-80% of cyclist fatalities are the fault of motorists. All single
vehicle car accidents, car/car accidents and so on are the fault of
motorists. 60%+ of pedestrian casualties are the fault of motorists.
That leaves less than 5% where a motorist is not to blame.

Only a fraction are the fault of motorists, but it is a very big
fraction.

...d

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Alex
Potter ([email protected]) wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote on Wednesday 21 December 2005 15:13:
>
> > The father of one of my schoolmates learned to drive during his
> > National
> > Service and he hadn't taken a test in civvy street either. He'd
> > probably be in his early seventies now, but I suppose it's conceivable
> > that there are some people who did likewise and have yet to turn 60.
> >
> Unlikely - I'm 59 and missed National Service by a couple of years...

(Notes own inability to do basic arithmetic...)

Make that "are not far past sixty"

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>David Martin wrote:
>>
>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>>in the UK each year, and that
>>>>only a fraction of the annual RTCs each year have a car driver as the cause.
>>>
>>>Stupid statement. Only a fraction of the annual RTC's do not have a
>>>falling tree as the cause.
>>
>>Yes, what I meant to convey was that, contrary to the way that the
>>figures are often portrayed, the figures are for RTCs of /all/ causes,
>>not just those where the cause is bad car driving. i.e. it in not valid
>>to claim 3500 deaths per year are the fault of car drivers.
>
> 60-80% of cyclist fatalities are the fault of motorists.

But not necessarily /car/drivers. There /may/ be a case for driving
tests for those who use the road commercially, bus drivers, truckers
etc., but you cannot attribute their accidents to private car drivers.

> All single
> vehicle car accidents,

Why /all/? If a wheel flies off one or a wall falls on one, there are
/many/ exceptions.

> car/car accidents and so on are the fault of
> motorists.

Not necessarily (as above).

> 60%+ of pedestrian casualties are the fault of motorists.
But how many are private car drivers?

> That leaves less than 5% where a motorist is not to blame.

No it doesn't.

> Only a fraction are the fault of motorists, but it is a very big
> fraction.

A mis quote.

--
Matt B

 

[Bob]

Could the cycling test also be a compulsory part of the driving test ?

It would make sense for a learner driver to demonstrate they understand
the rules of the road using a bicycle before being allowed an engine,
and it might make them more understanding of cyclists when they become
drivers.

 

[David Nutter]

On 2005-12-21, elyob <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, to no-one in particular, please remember that when peds are already on
> the road it's up to you to stop.

Yes, I had this demonstrated to me this morning. Filtering on the right past
slow-moving traffic, I was surprised by a pedestrian running out into the
road from the left, looking fixedly in the opposite direction. I managed to
scrub off most of my speed (about twice walking speed) but did make light
contact. I've been feeling bad about it all day, especially as I yelled
"watch what you're doing!" just before collision[1], though we both
apologised afterwards.

This occured because I'd foolishly assumed that noone would run out into
moving traffic. I won't make that mistake again.

First ped I've hit since the marauding chavlet and his skateboard in 2003.

Regards,

-david will be more cautious in future

[1] Well, I got as far as "Watc..." at least

 

[Mbike]

"John Wilton" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>
>>
>>Waffly bit snipped out
>>
>
> But I have already taken a test - it was my Cycling Proficiency Test some
> time ago when I was approximately 10. I could probably find the
> susstificate (or was it a badge?) if I looked hard enough.
> John

I failed mine. Does this mean I can at last give up those long painful
audax rides?
m

 

[John_Kane]

MSeries wrote:
> John Wilton wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > But I have already taken a test - it was my Cycling Proficiency Test some
> > time ago when I was approximately 10. I could probably find the
> > susstificate (or was it a badge?) if I looked hard enough.
> >
> > John
>
> I have both my certificate and my badge. As a 10,000 mile a year
> cyclist, I choose not to use some facilities yet do use others if they
> suit me. Just like roads. Not fair to say I don't want cycling
> facilities. It's not worth getting het up about a test for cyclists, it
> would take far too much organisation to set up and police, it'll never
> happen.

And it's too much trouble to have a helmet law too except Australia
didn't seem to think this nor did several Canadian provinces etc. I
imagine that the UK has a set of licence examiners for drivers? Not
all that hard to give them a 3 day course in cycling exams and presto
there you go.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada


>Even if it did, like the cat says it wouldn't make every rider
> a courteous one and it wouldn't make every driver a courteous one
> either, nothing would change, the authorities know this too.

 

[Peter B]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> The father of one of my schoolmates learned to drive during his National
> Service and he hadn't taken a test in civvy street either. He'd
> probably be in his early seventies now, but I suppose it's conceivable
> that there are some people who did likewise and have yet to turn 60.

The army would have taught them to a higher standard than the civvy one of
that time, probably to a higher standard in many respects than todays
civvies as they'd have to handle heavy vehicles of many types.
(Dad drove untested as a civvy early in WWII then enlisted in the REME
where, on advice, he never admitted his previous experience as it would've
predjudiced his chances of becoming a driver, the army wanted ab initios to
teach "the right way" = Their Way
--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/Stuff

 

[Alex Potter]

Peter B wrote on Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:31:

>
> "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> The father of one of my schoolmates learned to drive during his
>>> National
>> Service and he hadn't taken a test in civvy street either. He'd
>> probably be in his early seventies now, but I suppose it's
>> conceivable that there are some people who did likewise and have yet
>> to turn 60.
>
> The army would have taught them to a higher standard than the civvy
> one of that time, probably to a higher standard in many respects than
> todays civvies as they'd have to handle heavy vehicles of many types.
> (Dad drove untested as a civvy early in WWII then enlisted in the REME
> where, on advice, he never admitted his previous experience as it
> would've predjudiced his chances of becoming a driver, the army wanted
> ab initios to teach "the right way" = Their Way

Dad drove a Crab on D-Day. When he left the Army in around 1953 he was
licensed to drive everything on tracks or wheeels except a motor-mower.
He was, of course, Army trained.
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid