?

No argument that many younger drivers are appalling and should be banned, shat upon by the full force of the law etc etc. One can but hope that in the absence of lifetime driving bans, that with time they will eventually metamorphose into decent drivers - TBH probably most of them do.

The fundamental difference with the elderly drivers we're talking about in this thread is that these folk are at the very end of their driving careers, and their faculties are deteriorating: whatever happens, they are getting worse, not better.

Let's be clear - we're not just talking about "older drivers" here, we're talking about very old, infirm drivers who can no longer see properly, can't turn their heads to look behind, can't react quickly enough in an emergency, are in the early stages of dementia etc etc.

My point originally was that almost all drivers leave it too late before they quit - they don't appreciate that they no longer have the ability they used to. I can see this in my own father, still driving at 80: he's just about OK still, but despite hints being dropped by my mother and the rest of us, he refuses to consider the idea that he should give up. But really, now is the time he should do so, *before* he becomes a real danger. It won't be long before we have to push it harder, and that's going to be tough.

I suspect the reason that it's youngsters is because they are typically responsible for the high speed, reckless stuff which creates massive personal injury claims, and that's what costs the insurance companies. That, and the fact that as has been mentioned, elderly folk have a habit of leaving a trail of havoc in the wake without even being aware of it, let alone featuring on an insurance claim form.

David

Yup. They'd never have got away with such cost cutting in the home counties etc and Aberdeen traffic is just as heavy. And, of course, has really just the one route in which should have been a motorway, given the vast commercial traffic.

Ah. Like my wifes 89 year old aunt did last year..

My mother was doing 1200 miles a year her last two years.

She managed to break two wing mirrors, and put 17 dents and scratches in the car in that time.

The reason insurance is cheap is because old people drive cars they have had for years which are worthless, and don't claim for fear of losing insurance altogether..and they do almost no mileage at all.

My mothers mini that she wrote off after 14 years had done less miles than I did in one year, once..

To be fair to the old duffers nearly all the really bad "flowers at the roadside" type accidents seem to involve a car full of teenagers / early 20's adults in a crash either late at night or in the small hours of the morning. I am usually struck by these roadside shrines in that invariably there is nothing to indicate why, for instance, the only vehicle involved left the road to hit the only tree for miles around.

A lad on a motorcycle drove from Glasgow to Leeds (204 miles) turned into our modern housing estate (with which he had no connection) with narrow roads and within 50 yards had crossed the road, crossed the pavement, gone along a grass verge, and run into a concrete lamp post on the opposite side of the road, and was killed.

Another such accident at 3-00 am on a Sunday morning involved a transit van full of teenagers (5 fatalities IIRC) . The van just left the straight road going probably about 60+, downhill, in a 30 limit, crossed the pavement at a junction with a side road and went centrally into the corner of a 10 ft wall exposing a sealed off forgotten old graveyard about 6 feet above pavement level. The road had, it seems, been lowered over 100 years ago. 8-(

Both of these accidents were used by the local council to justify the installation of speed cameras on the main road, and in short order our company accountant got a ticket for driving at 35 mph in a 30 limit

:-)

DG

You cannot blame that sort of accident on the driver in front no matter how slow they drive. It is entirely a problem with the driver who is impatient maybe he should learn to drive properly before being allowed a car?

I used to agree with you, but that's predicated on the #2 vehicle actually being prepared to overtake. In the current environment, where overtaking seems to be seen more and more as a no-no, I'm not so sure any more.

The message from "Brian G" contains these words:

No doubt we have all seen atrocious driving from all age groups but I am by no means clear why you disagree with my statement. Is it because you do not accept that drivers with reaction times 10 or more times slower than the fastest are sufficiently in control to be safe or because you think that today's young are incapable of driving in a safer manner should they be sufficiently incentivised to do so?

FWIW the sort of driver I had in mind would be incapable of getting anywhere near the national speed limits. A good example was the old man featured on TV not so long ago still driving the A35 he had had since he started driving as a youth now having difficulty keeping within lane markings even at 20 mph. He should have given up driving before he had trouble keeping within lanes at 70.

Hmm. I reckon that if you overtake on a single carriageway road you have at least a 50/50 chance that the overtakee will try and shut the door on you regardless of what is coming the other way. Having learnt to drive when dual carriageways were rare and motorways almost nonexistent I still overtake when I can on single carriageways so I tend to see the bad side of a lot of slower drivers. They may respect the faster speed limits (but rarely reach then) but the rest of the Highway Code is a closed book to them.

Doesn't really matter how hard the old fogey is concentrating if his best is just not good enough.

We were all young once and had to go through the learning process. Driving too fast too soon is something that afflicts most male drivers, even those not so young. It even effected my father who didn't learn to drive until he was in his 50s.

Most really reckless drivers don't live long enough to become old.

There is no reason why he should need to overtake. What he should do is leave a gap so someone who wants to overtake can drop into the gap. This is one place where being able to drive is different to driving a car. Most drivers are never taught things like this and they sure don't have the brains to work it out for themselves. I suppose that's the difference between being taught by some old family member and being taught by a professional.

But I think that contrary to what someone said above, the reason #2 doesn't leave a gap is because he likes to think he's actually going to overtake eventually (that is, if he gets that stretch of straight road approx 1 mile long, with no oncoming traffic and if it's still daylight by the time this happens). So he stays close enough to #1 to do so.

David

The message from Lobster contains these words:

Given the number of drivers who never take even the most obvious of overtaking opportunities I am inclined to think that the real reason is usually to try and prevent anyone else overtaking. #2 is severely disadvantaged in the overtaking stakes if he is trying to drive up the rear of the vehicle in front. Not only will he have a very poor view of the road ahead (particularly if the obstruction is large and opaque) but should he or she actually ever attempt to overtake they will need to spend appreciably more time exposed to danger on the opposite side of the road. My driving instructor used to insist that overtaking was the most dangerous manoeuvre of all and that one should spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road when overtaking. Not practical of course these days in anything but the slowest of cars, at least not if one wants to stay legal. :-)

I have actually been at the back of a convoy well in excess of 10 vehicles long in which the only vehicle to overtake apart from myself was a 4 x 4 towing a large caravan from somewhere around #3 or #4. I didn't make my move till after the caravan did which gave everyone else in the queue ample opportunity to start overtaking should they have wanted to. (And yes it was a very long straight).

=============================== The situation you describe is a direct consequence of a general obsession with speed. People in the queue know that if they attempt to overtake they are quite likely to meet something coming the other way travelling at high speed - possibly somebody ignoring the speed limit because they're a 'good' driver.

This can be very frustrating for the driver who must get everywhere in a hurry but a large proportion of drivers allow time for the inevitable delays one meets on most journeys.

Cic.

The message from Cicero contains these words:

ISTM that the situation is nothing whatever to do with speed per se but all to do with judgement. To say that you sit in a queue going slower than you otherwise would because you might meet something coming the other way is nothing short of an admission of incompetence. The first essential for safe overtaking is sufficient clear road. The ability to overtake safely should be an essential skill in the armoury of any good driver but like any skill it benefits from being exercised regularly.

I generally don't bother to overtake on single carriageway roads these days unless I would prefer to drive at least 10 mph* faster than the vehicle ahead but I might stretch the point if vehicle is large and opaque. I much prefer to have a good view of the road ahead and in any case looking out for overtaking opportunities keeps one alert and ready to respond to any emergency.

*This is at least partly in consequence to the overtakee usually being affronted by being overtaken and thus keen to demonstrate that they too can drive 10 mph faster, at last until the first significant bend.

------------------------------ It is the mark of a good safe driver that he / she is prepared to wait until there is a safe opportunity to overtake. To suggest (as you do) that anyone should overtake simply to maintain some arbitrary personal speed target is a recipe for disaster. Overtaking without due regard to what might be coming from the other direction is a primary cause of head-on collisions.

------------------------------

The first essential for safe overtaking is sufficient clear road. The ability to overtake safely

------------------------------ I think you should re-examine your attitude towards driving on public roads and other road users. Your use of the word 'armoury' suggests the kind of aggressive attitude that many people find so dangerous. Most people drive at speeds that suit their purpose and convenience - not necessarily aiming to reach speed limits (and a bit over). Roads have a single primary purpose of enabling anyone with a suitable vehicle to get from point A to point B in whatever manner and at whatever speed (subject to legal constraints)they choose. Most road users don't want to have their speed dictated by a small minority of people who have decided that speed is essential and everybody must fall into line with their way of thinking.

---------------------------------

-------------------------------- This is your imagination at work. I don't suppose you've ever stopped one of these imaginary 'affronted overtakees' to ask them their opinion?

Cic.

I can't believe you really meant that as it is written?

David

Well, I have to agree with Roger there: have you never experienced such people deliberately accelerating and trying to close the gap in front of them just as you are overtaking them?

David

I agree too. It's happened to me...

Are you sure it isn't the idiot overtaking doing so just as the car in front is starting to accelerate having just entered the straight? I know that it has happened to me. Some burk starting to overtake just as I start accelerating from a bend. I am not going to stop accelerating when I reach a straight just because some fool wants to get to the next junction ten seconds before me.

The message from Lobster contains these words:

Perhaps the question you should be asking of Cicero is has he ever overtaken anything travelling faster than walking pace.