Category - Bad Drivers

The term “road rage” was coined as long ago as the late 1980s in America as a result of a series of roadside shootings. It was quickly bastardised to mean anything – from a slightly elevated pulse rate, all the way up to mass murder and genocide. The Wikipedia entry makes amusing reading. After effectively identifying every single human behaviour as “road rage” (if it occurs within 50 metres of a car), it then goes on to suggest that road rage is a medical condition. What a load of crap.

But what made me mention it was this story in a Scottish newspaper. Admiral – a company whose purpose is to make as much money out of motorists as possible for the service it knows they have to have – has done some “research” (i.e. it asked some people), and claims that:

As many as 32% say they are subject to road rage more than once a week, a new survey by insurance company Admiral found.

Of those road rage sufferers, 21% have had full-blown arguments with another motorist, while 36% said experiencing road rage made them drive more aggressively.

Believe me, if someone does something stupidly dangerous in front of me, they are going to get a little bit more than the total understanding and complete acquiescence Admiral appears to be suggesting they should merit. Shaking my head, or – if they can lip read – words along the lines of “clucking bat” are not road rage. Nor is there a medical condition anywhere inside my car – any such condition lies wholly with the prat who caused the alleged “road rage” in the first rage.

Road rage is actually when someone takes their anger to extremes and starts physically assaulting people or property. I’ll go as far as saying that physical intimidation is also road rage – where people aggressively tailgate you or deliberately cut you up, for example. But it isn’t just someone being annoyed at someone else’s stupidity, nor is it necessarily any sort of verbal exchange. It’s when it goes beyond that.

Admiral has basically allowed crap drivers to define what “road rage” actually is, and then they’ve run away with the results. I’d lay odds that of the 32% who have apparently encountered it “more than once a week”, most of them will have completely overlooked the fact that they were the fundamental cause of it to start with. If they learnt how to use roundabouts properly, how to drive at the correct speed, how to get into the lane they need more than 5 metres before they need to make a turn, how to signal (it’s that little lever on your steering wheel), how to queue for the next available pump, and so on, there’d be a whole lot less “road rage” around. At let’s not forget that many of them behave the way they do on purpose (especially if they’re Audi owners).

What should change first? The people who drive badly, or the people who they annoy by doing so?

This is funny. Nigel Deans is a driving instructor in Huddersfield, and he was conducting a lesson with his pupil driving in a bus lane outside of its hours of operation. The bus driver – irate at the fact anyone dared enter his own private driving lane – pulled alongside and gave them a mouthful.

When the ADI complained to Huddersfield Bus Company, they responded by informing him that the bus driver knew the rules of the bus lane – quite the opposite of what the actual events seem to suggest.

He said: “They said the driver knew  I was able to drive in that lane but he  was running late and trying to keep to  his timetable.”

Huddersfield Bus Company obviously figures as a prime nominee for the Prat Of The Year Awards. They cement this position even further:

A spokesman from Huddersfield  Bus Company acknowledged the incident but would not confirm if the driver  had been disciplined.

He said: “The driver will be dealt  with how we see fit, within our internal  systems.”

Here in Nottingham, buses are as big a menace as cyclists. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that their uniforms are made of Spandex. In the last couple of days my pupils have had to deal with one who was indicating to pull off before he’d even stopped to let passengers off on two stops – so determined was he not to let anyone pass; with one other who stopped short of the bus stop and so blocked the road because of the stupidly placed central pedestrian reservations that someone at the council decided we needed several thousand of a few years ago; and numerous others who start moving while you’re overtaking them. They don’t stay within speed limits, they deliberately jump out of light-controlled bus lanes when they see there are no people at the bus stop to avoid having to slow down while the lights change (and which are, in any case, biased in favour of the bus to change immediately one of them trips the proximity sensor), and if they’re actually ahead of schedule they will sit for 10 minutes or more at stops on narrow roads causing chaos while they read the newspaper.

The ADI also makes some valid comments about normal motorists’ use of bus lanes. My favourite around here is on Mansfield Road heading into Nottingham. Absolutely no one goes in it, then there’s a major free-for-all as they all try to move over when it ends. Or, no one goes in it until they see me in it – then they will move over to make sure I don’t get ahead of them. Or, when people are turning left into Mapperley Hall Drive, they wait until they are exactly level with the junction and then attempt a 90° turn into it – usually just in front of me, and without any form of mirror check.

This one makes you step back and think. Akif Hussain was on a provisional licence, was driving uninsured and unsupervised, and was showing off to his mates when he slammed into a 74-year old woman in Nelson, Lancs. He was driving at 59mph in a 30mph zone.

He was jailed for 18 months, ordered to pay £2,000, which he had saved up, in compensation to Mrs Gribble, banned for two years and must take an extended retest.

What pulls you up, though, is the fact that he is a charity worker for the British Heart Foundation, is an IT student, and has worked with disabled children.

It just goes to show that even the nice people can behave like total prats when they’re in a car, and especially when they’re young, immature, and inexperienced.

A Range Rover in Essex smashed into an electricity pole and cut the power to hundreds of homes and businesses. The driver reckons that “he sneezed”.

I wonder if it’d have been so simple if his sneeze had caused him to plough into a pedestrian or a cyclist? As it is, all we’re talking about is several thousand pounds to replace the pole and restore power, and the loss of money to those businesses affected.

You can make your own mind up. I suppose it depends a lot on whether you’re one of those annoying people who puts on a full Shakespearean performance when they sneeze (and who is too stupid to realise that there are places where that’s not a good idea anyway), or one who doesn’t.

I sometimes sneeze in the car – everyone does. I have never even come close to having an accident as a result, and certainly not one as bad as this.

More “opinion masquerading as “research”, this time from Be Wiser Insurance. They’ve discovered that many parents don’t feel their little darlings are properly equipped to drive when they pass their tests, with over 60% saying they were especially worried about them going on motorways.

Look. It would be great if we could take them on motorways during lessons, but that is not where they have their accidents.

The favoured location for this is on a country lane, on a bend, at night. More importantly, the correct procedure when at the location is to have a car full of mates screaming and shouting, a full stock of freshly-bought McDonalds food, and to be in the middle of a “bad testosterone” day, thus forcing you to show off how far away from maturity you really are. Oh, and all this must happen in a pratmobile – most likely part-financed by mummy and daddy – decked out to scream “I go faaaaast” from every angle.

To be fair, lesser worries are also given in the same story, such as driving at night, driving in town centres, and being distracted. But no further detail is given. The main focus is that motorways comment.

Be Wiser is either wholly irresponsible – or just very bad at interpreting and reporting important data correctly – for following the comment up with:

And the statistics appear to back up the worries of parents as drivers aged between 18-25 years are the group mostly likely to be involved in an accident according to Government figures.

YES! ON COUNTRY LANES, AT NIGHT, ON A BEND… NOT ON MOTORWAYS! Be Wiser has missed a trick by not expanding on the actual problems that it must – as an insurer – know about and which are the real causes of accidents. Apart from country lanes, other important factors include texting, showing off, driving and accelerating far too quickly then braking far too harshly, not knowing where you are going and changing direction at the last minute, not knowing the rules of the Highway Code (or not caring), and so on. All related to attitude, by the way. Motorways don’t even make the top ten.

An Audi driver was driving whilst twice the legal limit. William Watson, 27, drove into a hedge and wrote off his car, ran away from the scene of the accident, then evaded arrest when he was spotted by police a short time later. He was also reported for a separate offence a few days earlier of texting while driving, having been seen doing so by a police officer.

The funny part was his defence lawyer’s plea in mitigation:

[Watson] was held in high regard by those who knew him and had behaved in a way which was out of character.

I must say that he chose a bloody good way to behave “out of character”. Most people would have just picked one of the things he did, but Watson went for all three.

It occurred to me that defence lawyers would be better off not bothering trying to provide mitigating circumstances anymore. For a start off, if someone is guilty as hell the sob stories just make them look even more foolish as the courts totally ignore any pleas for leniency. The only realistic chance you’ve got of getting off is if you’re pregnant (or if you claim that post-natal depression made you do it). And let’s be honest, men can’t really pull that stunt.

Just when you thought you’d heard it all, something like this comes along. Alfa Romeo (a manufacturer of fast cars with added prat attraction) along with Marmalade (a company that makes its money insuring young drivers) have teamed up to do some “research” and come to the astounding conclusion that young drivers have accidents because they cannot afford new cars!

First of all, it is not “research”. Not in the slightest. It’s another survey, the sole purpose of which is to create publicity for the two companies involved.

The “research” – in particular, the article reporting it – is so amateurish it defies description. What is the point of reporting what the public thinks, when the facts are staring you right in the face?

Almost half of new young drivers believe they are being forced into less advanced motors – and this is a major contributor to those aged under 24 being involved in more car accidents than any other age group, according to a survey by manufacturer Alfa Romeo and insurer Marmalade.

Absolute bollocks. Young drivers (and anyone else) who have accidents do so because they drive badly. And insurance premiums are high for the age groups having most accidents as a direct result of this.

And young drivers in new cars are no different. Any safety features are only likely to mask the underlying appalling attitude and driving ability.

Police in Sussex have been carrying out roadside tests, and having licences revoked if people fail the eyesight test. It is a practical application of Cassie’s Law.

Some of the results so far are terrifying. In particular, a 66-year old in Eastbourne was found to be unable to read a car number plate from more than 4 metres! That’s less than a fifth the normal required distance. For all practical purposes he was driving whilst completely blind. The story rides on the back of that of 69-year old Wayne Metcalfe, who was jailed for 6 months (suspended for two years) after he killed a motorcyclist when he knocked him off without seeing him.

The guy who couldn’t read a plate beyond 4 metres also ought to be looking at a prison stretch. You don’t just overlook eyesight that poor (after all, the quality of vision within 4 metres is unlikely to be perfect in such a case, and not being able to see your feet properly would tend to register as there being something slightly wrong). In fact, ignoring such obvious problems has to be down either to criminal stupidity… or just the fact that criminal acts don’t bother you.