Motorist arrested after two cyclists killed in suspected hit-and-run

Leadership. If the people in government for 13 years have zero morals, the public will tend to follow.

psbcycle wrote:

ban dangerous drivers for life:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623592?fbclid=IwAR2bOZctGlbjWuX...

That petition doesn't go far enough. Banning people after they've killed someone is not enough. The whole punishment/points system for owning a motor vehicle licence needs overhauling. Owning a licence should be seen as a privilege and not a right. All serious driving offences should carry the threat of a lifetime ban. If you can't be trusted to drive responsibly, then simply, you should not be allowed to drive. 

You are correct but this is a move in the right direction and the more often parliament has to respond the more likely we are to get change. The petition is now at 7539. 2461 needed to get a response.

I hope I got my sums right.

peted76 wrote:

The whole punishment/points system for owning a motor vehicle licence needs overhauling. Owning a licence should be seen as a privilege and not a right.

More importantly, the whole culture around car ownership and use - i.e. the way it is used on public roads - needs to change.

While big, powerful and fast cars are promoted and idolised, whether through the huge $$$ involved in motorsport and the marketing of cars that are capable of huge speed with no restraint then things won't change.

The possibility of a driving ban, whether for a year or for life, won't work in the same way that life sentences and even capital punishment do not not deter people from committing serious crimes.

However, I'd be happy to see those who are caught while already banned being put in prison (and it being made crystal clear when they are sentenced that this will happen if they are caught). Also that 12 points means a ban without the cop-out of pleading 'exceptional hardship', a crappy excuse for repeatedly flouting the Law has been abused far too many times already.

Agree..  as far as I'm concerned a motorised vehicle should be considered a weapon in the eyes of the law. 

More realistically though.. I can't see a good reason why we have cars which can do over 70mph on the roads. Also the technology is in place today to have your car restrict it'self to the roads speed limit, so why don't we just enforce speed limits at the car level. This wouldn't stop people driving like idiots, but it 'might' force a change how we approach and loot at travelling by car. .  "The DTLR has stated that "speed is a major contributory factor in around one third of all road traffic accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps to kill 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more". -  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/55705...

Also if I had a wand, I'd ban the widest cars.. they are simply unnecessary and take too much room on the road. Limit all cars sold to 1.8m width maximum, promote small car useage, reduce pollution, wearand tear on the roads.

peted76 wrote:

Also if I had a wand, I'd ban the widest cars.. they are simply unnecessary and take too much room on the road.

You mean like when someone driving on their own in an SUV in a urban environment complains about a cyclist 'taking up all the road'...?

Yes.  However as we know the logic always runs in the opposite direction for "prestige technology" / "stuff the government isn't against".  So it goes: because there aren't rules against it, someone will do it.  If the fad gets traction (realistically - if some company heavily promotes it to make them money) it may then become the norm as everyone rushes to get their piece of the action.  At that point, "our streets / garages / parking spaces are too narrow!".  There's then massive pressure from people AND organisations on authorities to make everywhere suitable for the new thing and codify that.

This actually happens.  Plenty of actual complaints of "we have to park on the road because our garage is too small for the (now standard) vehicles we bought".  Or "we have to have three cars - we both have jobs and our eldest needs a car - and there is only space for one on the drive".

The met reported last year a figure of 50%. The third was based on the initial findings but when they analysed the final reports, it was found to be higher at around half.

We do need restrictions on size. I was behind an x6 at the w/e - no one needs a car of that size.

hirsute wrote:

The met reported last year a figure of 50%. The third was based on the initial findings but when they analysed the final reports, it was found to be higher at around half.

I read an article a while back talking about how there'd been a policy change where police reporting was based more on post-accident investigation rather than the he-said-she-said at the scene. Most forces found that speed shot up from being a contributing factor in ~15% to around 50% of crashes. Which makes sense when you look at DfT speed compliance stats.

hirsute wrote:

We do need restrictions on size. I was behind an x6 at the w/e - no one needs a car of that size.

Very much so. Two worrying trends that I've noticed recently are: just how little someone is willing to walk before reaching for their car keys (a recent survey concluded ~530m is as far as the average Brit would walk before deciding to drive instead), and that everyone has suddenly decided that they need a massive 2.5 tonne SUV because it's the current fashion. They are too big for our roads.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

a recent survey concluded ~530m is as far as the average Brit would walk before deciding to drive instead)

  If that's the average, and we (road.cc readers, obviously) are all skewing the average up, then there are a great many people who would just not walk. At all.

It did seem startlingly low to me as well (I think my letterbox is actuallly further away than that), but looking at the village where I used to live, I'd regularly see neighbours drive to local corner shops or drop thier kids off at school by car (journeys of 200-300m), so I can believe it.

There are commenters on this site that tell us that we shouldn't try to reduce car use because that would be like "19th century living". And others that will claim that they live in St Just and work in Glasgow, so obviously everyone needs to make every journey by car. But the reality is that the average car journey is pretty short, and a lot of car journeys (personally I'd say around half) really cannot be justified as being car journeys. Sure, we need to improve public transport and active travel infra, also things like the 4-day week and WFH being enshrined as a right for any job where it would be feasable would take a lot of cars off the road. But honestly, I think a big part of the problem is that there's a worrying number of people that would actually drive to the fridge if they could.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

It did seem startlingly low to me as well (I think my letterbox is actuallly further away than that), but looking at the village where I used to live, I'd regularly see neighbours drive to local corner shops or drop thier kids off at school by car (journeys of 200-300m), so I can believe it.

I have literally seen people with long-ish driveways on my work commute drive to their letterbox. I just measured one using Google Maps, it's about 60 metres.

How to say you're in North America without actually saying it.

brooksby wrote:

BalladOfStruth wrote:

a recent survey concluded ~530m is as far as the average Brit would walk before deciding to drive instead)

  If that's the average, and we (road.cc readers, obviously) are all skewing the average up, then there are a great many people who would just not walk. At all.

Did they factor in The Proclaimers?

And people complain car parks spaces are too small because they can't fit their massive jugernaut in it !

a recent survey concluded ~530m is as far as the average Brit would walk before deciding to drive instead

And that's when they're lying to look eco-friendly! In truth, it's going to be 200m

And heavy.

And those batteries are going to add more weight.

 I was behind an x6 at the w/e - no one needs a car of that size

I was in front of an A6 yesterday- L1 NYR, £40,000 or so, which has been without MOT for a month. He will be waved through with a 'nothing to see here' by Lancashire Constabulary- that's why you need a car of that size and price, because of the intangible benefits!

I have a car of that size, albeit a Skoda.

Mine was specced to carry a set of house doors in the back flat, and to be able to tow 2 tons.

With the 'we'll match the carwow 25% discount' from the dealer it came in about 25 less than the Audi, which wasn't big enough inside anyway and makes people hate you.