Can you ever see a time.. (discussion)

[Martin Keene]

Governent decisions and legislation is usually based on statistics and case study. Chances are, neither Westfields or Caterhams will ever feature as high risk vehicles simply beacuse they won't ever make a dent in any of the figures that may be used to guide Government thinking... IMHO of course...

It would also be *very* hard to do anything about all of the cars that are already on the road.

Same reason these systems that pyshically stop the car from speeding using GPS technology won't take off. Because the Government know there is a more chance of hell freezing over than making people put their hands in their pockets to fit the systems to their cars, and the government won't pay for it, especially as they will lose their speeding tax, sorry fines...

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

It goes on to explain that in any accident there is always fault on both sides

I tend to agree but would say there is nearly always fault on both sides. My son was sitting stationary at a set of lights when a female in a Peugeot 206, who was having a bull'n'cow with her other half whilst 'driving', smacked into his TT's rear end. How, exactly, can he have been in any way at fault? Incidentally, his insurers say that his premium will rise next year because he had an accident - they agree he was totally innocent and all costs were recovered from the other company, but that he has demonstrated that he is vulnerable.  

[Peter Cox]

Blatters for PM

Kerry

oh, bejasus...don't say that  

Personally, I think he's wrong on every count (sits back and waits)    

[Blatman]

[cast iron]

Governent decisions and legislation is usually based on statistics and case study. Chances are, neither Westfields or Caterhams will ever feature as high risk vehicles simply beacuse they won't ever make a dent in any of the figures that may be used to guide Government thinking... IMHO of course...

It would also be *very* hard to do anything about all of the cars that are already on the road.

Same reason these systems that pyshically stop the car from speeding using GPS technology won't take off. Because the Government know there is a more chance of hell freezing over than making people put their hands in their pockets to fit the systems to their cars, and the government won't pay for it, especially as they will lose their speeding tax, sorry fines...

The government are switching of analogue telly without dipping into thier pockets to provide the equipment needed for us to recieve digital, so they will do whatever they want. The will simply add it as an MOT requirement

[Martin Keene]

Hmm, fair comment... Although thinking about it, they don't even currently test the speedo at MOT time. I wonder how long it will before that gets added?

[Blatman]

Never. How would they test it? They'd need calibrated rollers that are capable (I guess) of doing at least 70mph amd measuring that speed *accurately*. Otherwise you'll have people contesting speeding tickets...

[Carl]

How would they test it?

I guess with a £100 handheld gps and quick drive up the road

[Blatman]

Civilian GPS is not *accurate*, but I guess it may be accurate enough. Hadn't thought of that...

[KerryS]

How would they test it?

I guess with a £100 handheld gps and quick drive up the road

Oooooooo! Calibration, insurance, liabilities...........No, it'd have to be RR as Blatters says = £££££££££££££££££ Then there'd need to be driven ones (for example where non-driving wheel was used for speedo) and passive ones (couldn't put auto geabox cars on a driven roller).

That's why there aren't many of them eg VOSA test stations.

There again, that could be a money generator for HMG if we all had to have our MOT at a VOSA test station. We'd have to book about a year in advance.

Kerry

[nikpro]

It goes on to explain that in any accident there is always fault on both sides

I tend to agree but would say there is nearly always fault on both sides. My son was sitting stationary at a set of lights when a female in a Peugeot 206, who was having a bull'n'cow with her other half whilst 'driving', smacked into his TT's rear end. How, exactly, can he have been in any way at fault? Incidentally, his insurers say that his premium will rise next year because he had an accident - they agree he was totally innocent and all costs were recovered from the other company, but that he has demonstrated that he is vulnerable.  <!--emo&

I would not wish to comment on each idividual accident but there is always some element of fault no matter how slight or some evasive action that could be taken to maybe help prevent that accident occuring and it is the thought that there was nothing I could do which stops driving improving.

Using the example you have given - when you stop at lights you should leave a bigger gap between yourself and the next vehicle so if a car approaches from behind you can move foward and repeatedly press the brake pedal - a flashing brake light attracts far more attention than especially none or even a solid red light and sound the horn as well.

[Carl]

Calibration, insurance, liabilities...........No

yes but that logic goes for everything on the MOT.

What about testing tread depth on tyres, are the gauge calibrateds, how hard and how close to 90deg does the operator have it when taking reading, how easy are they to read?

[KerryS]

Mmm -- true.

Kerry

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

It goes on to explain that in any accident there is always fault on both sides

I tend to agree but would say there is nearly always fault on both sides. My son was sitting stationary at a set of lights when a female in a Peugeot 206, who was having a bull'n'cow with her other half whilst 'driving', smacked into his TT's rear end. How, exactly, can he have been in any way at fault? Incidentally, his insurers say that his premium will rise next year because he had an accident - they agree he was totally innocent and all costs were recovered from the other company, but that he has demonstrated that he is vulnerable.  <!--emo&

I would not wish to comment on each idividual accident but there is always some element of fault no matter how slight or some evasive action that could be taken to maybe help prevent that accident occuring and it is the thought that there was nothing I could do which stops driving improving.

Using the example you have given - when you stop at lights you should leave a bigger gap between yourself and the next vehicle so if a car approaches from behind you can move foward and repeatedly press the brake pedal - a flashing brake light attracts far more attention than especially none or even a solid red light and sound the horn as well.

He was on the front rank and had been for a while....  

Would you advocate driving into crossing traffic?

Note that I generally do agree with you but there are always exceptions, few though they might be.

[Willow]

It goes on to explain that in any accident there is always fault on both sides

I tend to agree but would say there is nearly always fault on both sides. My son was sitting stationary at a set of lights when a female in a Peugeot 206, who was having a bull'n'cow with her other half whilst 'driving', smacked into his TT's rear end. How, exactly, can he have been in any way at fault? Incidentally, his insurers say that his premium will rise next year because he had an accident - they agree he was totally innocent and all costs were recovered from the other company, but that he has demonstrated that he is vulnerable.  <!--emo&

I would not wish to comment on each idividual accident but there is always some element of fault no matter how slight or some evasive action that could be taken to maybe help prevent that accident occuring and it is the thought that there was nothing I could do which stops driving improving.

Using the example you have given - when you stop at lights you should leave a bigger gap between yourself and the next vehicle so if a car approaches from behind you can move foward and repeatedly press the brake pedal - a flashing brake light attracts far more attention than especially none or even a solid red light and sound the horn as well.

He was on the front rank and had been for a while....  

Would you advocate driving into crossing traffic?

Note that I generally do agree with you but there are always exceptions, few though they might be.

I have to agree with m_o_t_c_o. I was witness to an accident where a girl stopped for a box junction and the car driver behind obviously assumed that she would drive up to the traffic queue and stop ON the box junction, so totally misjudged her braking point.

The result was that poor girl who was driving absolutely correctly got shunted hard in the rear. How could she have anticipated that the car driver behind was going to be an idiot who failed to observe the rules of box junctions? There really wasn't time for her to take evading action and drive onto the junction - it all happened in a split second.