Another insurer on the publicity trail again, but Swiftcover reckons that keeping your fog lights on when they aren’t needed (i.e. almost every male driver under the age of 30) leads to “as many as 300,000” accidents and 2,000,000 near misses per annum.
The full press release includes the following figures:
fog lights caused 300.000 accidents in 2011
2m near misses in the same period
20% of young drivers leave lights on “because it looks good”
On that last one… I told you so!
Other excuses were that their normal lights weren’t bright enough (but obviously, brighter than they were), and to improve visibility on poorly lit roads. Those under 34 years were most likely to have left lights on “because it looked good” (look, I told you, didn’t I?)
Someone really needs to get it across to them: they don’t look cool with fog lights on. They look like what they are – total prats.
Mind you, I’m not quite sure how Swiftcover can attribute so many accidents just to fog lights. Just as many people driver around with only one light working (so you think there’s a motorbike coming at you), and that’s far more dangerous than fog lights being on.
As if to further pour water on the “warning” in the previous story, this one came in on the newsfeeds. A tragedy already written in stone, so enduring and persistent is it becoming.
Gary Saunders was 24, and last April he was negotiating a bend when he misjudged and crashed into a tree. He had passed his test just 6 weeks earlier. The car had no defects, nor did the road, and no other vehicle was involved.
[the police are]… of the opinion that Mr Saunders misjudged the bend.
His speed may have been excessive for the conditions.
So, yet again the same script is played out, with a young and inexperienced driver going too fast – and losing the bet!
Did Gary Saunders’ performance on the Theory Test – or his revision leading up to it – have any impact on the outcome of the incident? Not one bit of it, and yet the outcome is the very thing that causes the insurance companies to shove premiums sky-high for young drivers, and then start issuing “warnings” about the Theory Test being “harder”.
Memorising Theory Test questions is not the cause of high RTA figures among young drivers. Nor is the quality of their driving lessons involved. The problem goes much, MUCH deeper than that.
I was driving down Ruddington Lane in Nottingham. Just outside the old Becket school (currently being demolished because the school has moved) there is a chicane and speed bumps. We can only guess at whether the chicane/humps will be removed now they’re no longer needed.
I was on the side where you give way to oncoming traffic. Coming the other way – way beyond the last hump on that side (70m down the road if you measure it on Google Maps) – there was a car. On my side, a blue Corsa (reg. R493 OAU) had already stopped while I was 10-20 car lengths away from it. It could easily have gone (so much so, that it SHOULD have gone), but at this stage it was just “tut-tut-tut” and shaking your head territory.
When I pulled up behind I noticed it was occupied by two young girls. They were having a great old time – the driver was obviously texting and discussing the text with her passenger. She wasn’t aware of me behind – and she certainly didn’t see the other car flash its lights at her to go while it was STILL on the other side of that final speed bump.
The Corsa driver was of the ink-still-wet-on-licence age. Either she or her passenger live off that road, and one would hope neither of the pair’s parents condone this sort of behaviour – being significantly responsible for it in the first place.
The Corsa driver had stopped in the middle of the road predominantly to text. It was her only interest at that point. She was not aware of anything happening around her. And it is a precise illustration of what is wrong with many young drivers today, and shows why they have more fatal accidents than older drivers.
The insurance companies talk of “black box” supervision to get premiums down. Would it pick up this sort of attitude to driving? Absolutely not, and yet it is the biggest danger on our roads today.
This story just came through on the news feeds. Northern Ireland is now considering black box technology to try to curb its own problems. Apparently, insurance in NI can be up to 70% higher than in the UK – which I’m sure is a meaningless statistic, since I doubt that this refers to the difference between the highest quotes in the UK and the lowest in NI (more likely, the lowest UK quote and the highest NI one).
What gets me about all these “initiatives” is that the stated target is to reduce insurance premiums.
What then happens is that once the insurance has been brought down, the little morons switch insurers (one without a black box requirement), and start driving like complete prats again.
Just like Pass Plus – when it still brought insurance down – people were doing it ONLY to get the insurance benefits. After that, they just drove like they would have done without having done the course at all. You even had “fit and proper” instructors signing it off without doing the driving, and even now you see instructors (and recently passed drivers) boasting that they “didn’t need to do much for Pass Plus because they’d already done it on their driving lessons”.
The Pass Plus syllabus is quite clear: it is additional training. Driving lesson experience cannot be included on it.
It’s also strange that NI is only “considering” doing it – and a year after everyone else. And that’s in spite of no legislation being needed to implement it.
It isn’t just the bad drivers who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
I saw a story in the newsfeeds today which raises a lot of questions, but provides no real answers. It concerns the death of a young boy, knocked down by a delivery driver who was speeding.
I’m not going to link to the story, because what I’m going to say is in no way intended to apply to just this case – and it will be taken the wrong way by anyone involved with the specific story involved.
The driver was driving at least 20mph over the speed limit and, according to experts, he would have stopped many feet short of the child if he had not been doing so. Irrespective of how much of a nice guy he is, he deserves everything the Law can throw at him. It was HIS choice to speed – a behaviour which is apparently normal for his age group.
As usual in such cases, all the mothers who even vaguely knew the dead child are swarming in the manner normal to them. There are demands for speed bumps and 20mph speed limits. No doubt calls for the Death Penalty and various forms of castration or dismemberment were left on the cutting room floor.
The death is tragic, naturally. Any such death is – no matter who the victim might be. But what I’m interested in is why these women don’t actually do something which is a little more in their power and far more effective. Namely, to teach their bloody kids to keep off roads, and to put the fear of God into them for poor road safety behaviour. It seems like parental responsibility is officially non-existent from some time between conception and birth these days.
On a lesson today, I witnessed a kid – who must have only been a couple of years older than the victim in the story – riding his bike the wrong way around a busy roundabout, and then in the middle of the wrong side of the road up a hill. Unless he had escaped from a secure unit, he was doing it consciously and deliberately.
And the frightening thing is that, in maybe 5 years time, he will be in a bloody Corsa or Audi with precisely the same attitude. Less than ¼ mile from where he was doing it, I’ve had pratmobiles overtake me on the wrong side of another roundabout more than once. It is NOT isolated behaviour.
Other times, I’ve had kids of similar ages lying down in front of the car. One time – and this was on Firs Road in West Bridgford – a group of Sloaney teenage girls decided it was funny to walk in front of the car when they saw it coming. Firs Road residents live in houses valued at anything up to £1m, and they hate learners with a vengeance – something which obviously rubs off on to their little darlings.
The irony is that if these little prats don’t get killed first, there’s an increased likelihood of them killing someone when they grow up and get cars of their own because of the upbringing they’ve had. It’s getting worse by the generation, and that’s why idiots like the driver involved in the original story end up doing what they do.
So, in cases like the one mentioned, the child’s death is quite probably as much the responsibility of the parents as it is anyone else’s. And the driver’s behaviour is as much his parents’ responsibility as it is his.
With the impending change to the law, which will see learner drivers allowed on the motorways with their instructors (and that’s means with ADIs – not mum and dad), there is a big question mark hanging over what they will learn from what they see other drivers doing, as opposed to what those other drivers should be doing. The most obvious example is speed and the various speed limits associated with motorways.
About 90% of the population labours under the mistaken impression that 70mph is an “advisory” limit, and that it’s perfectly safe and legal to do 80 or even 90mph if “you can see it is safe”. They support this argument with the claim that the police won’t stop you “unless you’re doing more than a ton”, or some similarly stupid logic.
Some might argue that this is no different to what happens on normal roads. But motorways have been for so long the preserve of the “advanced” motorist, and what happens on them is not the same as on normal roads at all – it’s one big reason why learners are being allowed on them: the simple fact that they ARE different!
A similarly high percentage of these “expert” drivers also thinks it’s OK to ignore reduced speed limits through road works – particularly if it looks like no road work activity is taking place (at night times or weekends, for example). Of course, they know that something must be different – most of them will still slow down a little to begin with – but it’s a case of monkey-see-monkey-do, and once they’ve been frustrated for a mile or so by others going faster than them, they also speed up.
The fact of the matter is that the police COULD stop you, and they COULD prosecute you, if you exceed 70mph on a road works-free motorway. It would depend heavily on the circumstances. And they COULD also stop and prosecute you if you ignore the round speed limit signs erected through road works. In most cases, to avoid having to keep taking them down at night, the construction companies seek temporary speed limit restrictions, which remain in force for the duration of the works. The problem of “experts” putting road workers’ lives at risk is so bad that the construction companies sometimes even erect expensive average speed cameras in places where work is likely to be of an extended nature (but even then, the “experts” apparently know when these are not in service, and therefore can treat them as “advisory”).
In my area, the A46 is being turned into a dual carriageway, and various bypasses built. Work started in 2009 and is due to end this spring – it’s been a huge project. But you can subscribe to Highways Agency updates for projects such as this, and I can assure you that official temporary speed limit restrictions have changed dozens of times in the period work has been in progress (I had to unsubscribe in the end because of the volume of the updates – not all of them are particularly relevant to the driver).
The police have guidelines which they can use to decide when to issue a ticket or notice of intended prosecution (NIP). This Which?Car article (it’s now dead) tables the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) recommendations for when to issue a ticket and when to prosecute, but it also stresses that individual forces can use their own discretion – and only an idiot would assume that “discretion” just applies to not prosecuting someone.
But getting back to the point. Everything I’ve already mentioned also applies to the motorway matrix sign system. And this is where learners are likely to become extremely confused by what they see, and what it appears they might end up being taught by people who always think that they know best.
Matrix signs usually appear in the central reservation, and the Highway Code says the following about them:
255
Motorway signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) are used to warn you of a danger ahead. For example, there may be an incident, fog, a spillage or road workers on the carriageway which you may not immediately be able to see.
256
Signals situated on the central reservation apply to all lanes. On very busy stretches, signals may be overhead with a separate signal for each lane.
257
Amber flashing lights. These warn of a hazard ahead. The signal may show a temporary maximum speed limit, lanes that are closed or a message such as ‘Fog’. Adjust your speed and look out for the danger until you pass a signal which is not flashing or one that gives the ‘All clear’ sign and you are sure it is safe to increase your speed.
Now, the problem here is that there is no MUST about it. In the Highway Code, anything that you MUST or MUST NOT do (in bold red), as opposed to SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do (in bold black) will have a specific law associated with it, meaning that if you contravene that specific rule then you are committing an offence. The Highway Code does not say that the matrix signs are The Law, so the “experts” regard them as “advisory” – it is inevitable, therefore, that some learners will end up being taught the same.
I found this interesting link to Traffic Answers. What especially interested me was what it said about matrix signs.
Are speed limits on them obligatory? No, but they would be displayed for a reason, and if you were caught ignoring them then you could possibly be committing the offence of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving. But even more interesting is this comment:
In some areas, the local legislation is such that they have now become mandatory and you could, therefore, be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.
Now this flies completely in the face of those “experts” who know best, and who insist on emphasising the “advisory” nature of matrix speed limits. But I already know their argument. It will be along the lines of “they can’t do that”, combined with some amateur courtroom stuff about how it would have to get through Parliament! Or maybe something like “ah! But that’s only the overhead ones…”
As Traffic Answers says, “there is always a cause for them even if it doesn’t become apparent”. They cite the example of something lying in the carriageway (something that you might pass without even noticing if it isn’t in your lane), and the speed limit being reduced accordingly to reduce risk. There is no way ANY “expert” could possibly know whether this is the case, and so no way they could make the correct decision to ignore the matrix limit.
Even if Traffic Answers is wrong concerning matrix speed limits being mandatory “in some areas”, teaching learner drivers to ignore them would be appallingly bad instruction.
It will be interesting to see if taking learners on to motorways has the effect that Mike Penning says it will – by reducing motorway fatalities. Because if new drivers end up being given even the slightest indication that matrix signs can be ignored “if you judge it to be safe”, I just can’t see that happening. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Howard Nelson, 40, was being chased by police in Salterbeck, Cumbria, on icy roads. At one point he almost hit a postman. He has been convicted of dangerous driving and is awaiting sentence. The Judge said that the only question was whether the “inevitable prison sentence” should be suspended.
The report says:
[Nelson] said that the male police driver chasing him had fabricated his story because he fancied the female officer who was with him, and wanted to impress her.
Well, I think that should help the judge make the right decision.
I saw this in today’s newspapers – this version is from The Telegraph. A learner driver has been convicted and jailed for 2 years for killing a 9-year-old girl after losing control during her first time driving a car.
Beatrice Mawamba, 34, was described as “profoundly ignorant” about motoring and didn’t even know what the brake pedal did, according to the judge. As well as killing Shamirah Grant, she injured two other children – one of them seriously.
Mawamba was being “taught” by her husband. Initially, according to the version of the story in printed edition of The Sun, he was also charged with the same offence as his wife, but the case was dropped. Apparently, the husband was telling Mawamba to brake as they raced towards the children… but she didn’t know how to do that!
The dead girl’s parents have “forgiven those present in the car… We appreciate that such a terrible event was not intentional.”
It’s important to remember that last part, because neither of the Mawambas did this on purpose, nor was it anything specifically to do with their ethnicity (something certain “expert commentators” on some web forums have been quick to latch on to). The route they had chosen for the wife to learn to drive is one that probably millions of others have selected over the years, and one that is likely to become ever more popular given the current economic climate.
However, the tragic events involved clearly show what a huge responsibility it is both learning to drive… and teaching someone to do so.
I was furious today. My first lesson was at 10am and I turned up bang on time. The pupil was a few minutes late (he normally waits outside as I drive up), and I was just about to go and knock.
So, he got in the car, and as he finished adjusting his mirrors he rubbed his face with both hands. That always makes me ask them if everything is OK – they are often unwell or haven’t slept for some reason.
But then I registered the familiar smell of alcohol, and asked “were you out on the piss last night?” “Yes”, came the reply. He didn’t get in until after 1pm, and although I didn’t ask, he probably drank at least 16 units of beer.
Working on the principle that it takes about an hour to get rid of one unit, I figure that he must have still had around 6 or more units in him – so three times over the drink-drive limit! (Those calculations are estimates, just in case one of the many, many pedants who become driving instructors are looking in).
We didn’t do the lesson. I read the riot act. And I charged him.
You see, young people appear singularly incapable of accepting that they are wrong, and will invoke all manner of pseudo-science (and rap or hip-hop lyrics) to prove their point. They are the modern day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society in this respect.
First of all, I found this Australian study from 1997, titled Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement (C. N. Kloeden, A. J. McLean, and G Ponte). It makes very interesting reading – particularly the findings represented by this graph:
What the researchers did was investigate the details associated with a number of crashes, and calculate the relative risk of an injury-accident for various speeds above 60km/h (which is around 40mph). They set the relative risk to 1.0 at exactly 60km/h.
The clear conclusion they drew was that for every 5km/h above 60km/h, the relative risk of an accident involving injury doubled. So at 60km/h it was 1.0, at 65km/h it rose to ~2, at 70km/h it was ~4, and so on. At 85km/h (approximately 55mph) – the upper limit of their study – the relative risk had risen to almost 60.
As the researchers point out, the risk of being involved in a casualty crash is quite low – this graph is relative risk. But the findings are quite clear. They conclude:
Above 60 km/h there is an exponential increase in risk of involvement in a casualty crash with increasing travelling speed such that the risk approximately doubles with each 5km/h increase in travelling speed.
Like the Australian paper, it makes reference to data from 1964, by Solomon. The original graphs are shown on the left, but you can see them in greater detail in the Australian paper.
The top one shows the involvement rate in accidents versus travelling speed – and there is one curve for daytime accidents, and one for nighttime. It is clear that the rate is lowest between 50 and 70mph. It rises exponentially either side of this.
The lower graph shows the involvement rate in accidents versus deviation for the mean speed of the traffic all around (again, one curve for daytime, one for nighttime). The involvement rate is lowest for cars travelling close to the mean speed – in other words, the same speed as everyone else. The greater the deviation, then the greater the involvement rate.
The lower graph explains the upper one. Basically, since most people will be travelling at somewhere around the speed limit, it is those who are deviating grossly – by either driving too fast or too slow – who appear most at risk. It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong as far as travelling speed is concerned, because this is just accident involvement, not accident responsibility.
The relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity is unequivocal and based on the laws of physics. The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is a function of its mass and velocity squared. Kinetic energy is dissipated in a collision by friction, heat, and the deformation of mass. Generally, the more kinetic energy to be dissipated in a collision, the greater the potential for injury to vehicle occupants. Because kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicle’s speed, rather than by speed alone, the probability of injury, and the severity of injuries that occur in a crash, increase exponentially with vehicle speed. For example, a 30–percent increase in speed (e.g., from 50 to 65 mi/h [80 to 105 km/h]) results in a 69–percent increase in the kinetic energy of a vehicle.
This is precisely what I have been saying. That the faster you are going, the more serious will be the consequences if you have an accident. And the report adds this:
Solomon [from 1964, again] concluded that crash severity increased rapidly at speeds in excess of 60 mi/h (96 km/h), and the probability of fatal injuries increased sharply above 70 mi/h (112 km/h).
So on the one hand, it would appear that the current UK upper limit of 70mph IS the best in terms of convenience and safety. However, the report also mentions the effects of raising and lowering speed limits around the world in the last 20 years or so. The researchers found the following:
relatively small reductions in upper speed limits led to a reduction in fatalities by up to a quarter
relatively small increases in upper speed limits led to an increase in fatalities by up to a a third
It should be pointed out that some changes appeared to have no significant effect on accidents and fatalities (read the report yourselves), but the majority did. It was clear that increasing speed limits led to anything from a negligible to a dramatic increase in accidents and fatalities (with the exception of one US situation).
Finding this information is easy – and there is much more or it out there. However, what is also clear from reading it is that there is no single factor which governs safety, accidents, or anything else. You can’t just push a button or flip a switch and have everything all nice and comfy – something the DSA needs to take note of the next time it tries to make a silly blanket decisions about ADIs having to sit in on driving tests, and argue that this will reduce fatalities somehow.
Is it any wonder young people (mentioned in Part I of this topic) have stupid ideas about speeding?
The simple fact is that the faster you go, the less time you have to react – and as a new driver, you already have far less time than you think. You are not perfect, and you most certainly aren’t immortal. The result of this is that any accident you have will be worse – much worse – than if you’d have gone slower.
On that last one… I told you so!
speed bumps. We can only guess at whether the chicane/humps will be removed now they’re no longer needed.
technology to try to curb its own problems. Apparently, insurance in NI can be up to 70% higher than in the UK – which I’m sure is a meaningless statistic, since I doubt that this refers to the difference between the highest quotes in the UK and the lowest in NI (more likely, the lowest UK quote and the highest NI one).
answers. It concerns the death of a young boy, knocked down by a delivery driver who was speeding.
