Conference terri::cars_uk

A bill to stop newly qualified drivers from driving cars of more than 1,000cc
for 12 months after passing their test was introduced in the commons this week.

The Newly Qualified Drivers bill would oblige such drivers to display a plate
showing their inexperience and restrict the number of passengers they would
be allowed to carry to two

Craig

    That sounds silly to me.  Underpowered vehicles are just as much a
    hazard as 'boy racers'.  I think that someone who is inexperienced at
    making decisions in traffic may require a little more power underfoot
    than someone who has been driving for a while.  I'm saying that they
    should all drive V-12's, but 1000cc is pretty small.
    
    I drove a 850cc Mini once, and found that it couldn't get out of its
    own way, let alone the way of a maniac lorry driver...
    
    

    
    This seems like another case of imposing restrictive legislation
    to avoid a problem,  rather than provide training and incentives
    to solve it.
    
    The driving test could include a fee that was ploughed into driver
    education - at the end of the test a succesful candidate would get
    vouchers for an hours motorway driving, and an hours general
    tuition. Similarly an unsuccessful candidate would get a couple
    of vouchers for standard tuition. Driving schools would be obliged
    to accept vouchers, and further tuition would be conducted in realistic
    conditions, in a car without L-plates. A side effect would be less
    "speculative" test applications by people unsure of passing. Vouchers
    could also be included for associate membership of an advanced driving
    organisation.
    
    I don't suggest this scheme is flawless - it just gives a different
    approach to solving the basic problem, lack of driver education.
     
    Bi||

If this happens then I see a market for sub-compact under-1000 cc turbo-charged
cars - like the Lancia Y10. 

Also, imagine the distortions to car prices at this end of the market - 998cc
Renault 5's reselling for more than 1298cc ones, etc.

Steve

    It all sounds good but why don't the people in the know address the
    problem of 'old dears' who never had to pass a test, never use
    indicators, and think 15mph is dangerously fast.
    
    I actually got stuck behind someone recently who was on a 'national
    speed limit' section of road, but who kept SLAMMING the brakes on to
    reduce the car to 30 mph all the time. She would do this on completely
    straight and clear roads.
    
    I think these kind of people are more dangerous than people who have
    just passed the test, and perhaps money should be spent to insist that
    people over the age of x, have to be re-tested every z years.
    
    Anyone agree/disagree.
    
    Greg

    I thibk the idea of limiting what a learner is allowed to do is a good
    idea. The majority of drivers involved in accidents are the
    inexperienced ones, who have not learned their limits. Whether this
    should be done on the basis of a car's CC is doubtful. I was thinking
    more along the lines of speed restrictions, displaying a special plate,
    and on-going training for the first year, with tests.
    
    Furthermore, I think EVERYONE should have to periodically re-take the
    test. This should sort out most of the "indicator, wots one of them,
    guvn'r" problems, and probably halve the number of cars on the road. Of
    course, the government that introduces this would be thrown out of
    office at the next election. P'haps we could get Maggie to sponsor it
    !!
    
    Colin
    

    
    I think 'refresher' courses would be a good idea, maybe not compulsory,
    but if the insurance companies were to offer discounts for people who
    had passed their refresher course, you could persuade people that it was
    financially a good idea, even if they _knew_ that their driving was
    already perfect ..... :-)
    
    Elaine

    
    Great idea, a refresher, but can you imagine the trouble and
    red-tape if they tried to make a retest compulsory. There are 
    already waiting lists for the one-and-only test and making everybody
    else take a test once a year would grind the whole system to a halt
    in days!
    
    Mark
    

    There is also the advanced driving Test, is there not?
    ..and a few insurance co's give discounts if you have past that test.
    
    Arfon.
    *8+)

    
    Re The advanced driving test.
    
    Is there ONE definitve advanced driving test administered by the
    MOT? If so, does it still insist on the old pull-push steering style
    which even the Police appear to have given up on now (according
    to an article on a recent early evening news program) ?
    
    Mark

    re:a few
    
    I don't think optional "refresher" courses would fit the bill (no pun
    intended :-) Insurance discounts would not effect company car drivers,
    who are some of the worst offenders (myself included !!!) They also
    wouldn't catch the old dears whose insurance cost four pounds seven and
    thrupence. etc etc. As already mentioned, there are already "advanced"
    tests which can give you discounted insurance, but the percentage of
    people taking them up is minimal. This is probably because the people
    who voluntarily go to RoSPA and the IAM are (by definition) responsible
    people, therefore precisely not the person the idea is aimed at.
    
    I am not suggesting that people should be forced to do a test every
    year, say every five years. They should also pay a fee for the test,
    which would contribute to the cost of running and administering it.
    Furthermore, there would (probably) be cost savings due to fewer cars
    on the road, less accidents, less maintenance .... But it should be
    compulsory. If you are a responsible driver, you won't mind doing it.
    If you're an irresponsible driver, you SHOULD be doing it !!!
    
    
    Anyway, this is off the point. In principle, inexperienced drivers who
    have just passed their test should be treated as a special case =>
    ongoing training, special plate, further tests, etc.
    
    
    Colin_who'd_probably_fail_the_11_plus !!!

    
    Why not use some of the already ludicrously high road tax (in terms
    of how much is used for the road users benefit anyway!) to pay for
    this testing scheme? Certainly every 5 years (or even 10) would
    be a better way of doing things, but would a failure mean you were
    automatically unfit to drive? Would it be the same sort of test
    as the initial one? By general concesus that's really only a way
    of saying that someone is fit to go out on the road and 'learn'
    how to drive on the road. Would anyone really claim that a nation
    of people who drive like freshly qualified drivers would be safer?
    
    Any such test would have to take account of the fact that the original
    test doesn't keep up with modern thinking on safe driving or prevailing
    road conditions.
    
    Would keeping newly qualified drivers in low powered cars for a
    year really help that much? Surely the real hooligans would just
    have the opportunity to go mad a year later once they'd sold their
    learner car, and of course they'd be even more convinced that they
    were the world's best driver after a year.
    
	
    Mark
    

    
    Whats this about push-pull steering? Sounds like a good excuse for
    a new note, Mark ;-)
    
    Bi||.

    
    Apparently even the Police advanced driver's course teaches drivers
    that push-pull is NOT the safest way of steering (especially in
    fast turns).
    
    Mark

    I saw a Telly program recently which agrees with what Mark is saying,
    the Police have stated that you have more control, and have a quicker
    reaction to steering wheel effect(!!), in the event of something going
    wrong.
    
    They also said that they are teaching their guys/gals to just dip the
    clutch in order to steer out of a skid. This is because all cars react
    differently, and this way is the only way which has the same affect on
    all cars.
        
    Greg

    Anybody got any info as to whether it made any difference when the
    motorcycle riding laws were changed to limit learners to 125cc ?
    
    Might be an interesting parallel.
    
    
    Tony

The item was on Top Gear, that most revered and accurate TV program.  It 
started off by saying that the police driving technique is wrong and then went
on to explain why.  Mainly because of:

	Sskid Control
	Ssteering Wheel usage.
	Ggear changing.

It pointed out that the techniques taught are pretty old and that police drivers
should look at current racing and rally driving techniques.  The only police 
driving officer I know thought that the program was dangerous and misleading.  
The top police drivers are taught to heal and toe and to apply imagination when
using the steering wheel.  The police driving system is not that rigid, it is 
a set of open choices, a framework to base your driving on.  Like all rule 
systems, there are times when rules can be broken.  A truely great driver knows
when those times are.

The program seemed to imply that Joe Public shouldn't bother learning the police
driving techniques (via RoSPA and IAM) either.  That's misleading - the 
techniques apply to everyday driving and you're unlikely to find them lacking in
those circumstances.  Don't forget that the lowest trained police drivers, only
fit to drive pandas around town are better trained/skilled than most class 1 
RoSPA drivers.

Dave

    RE: refresher tests...
    
    I think that perhaps a refresher test after 6 months or 1 year might be
    usefull, but much after that there is no hope.  Within the first 6-12
    months people get aquainted with the road, their car, and making quick
    decisions - they also develop their own bad habits.
    
    I think that 90+% of the people on the roads know how they SHOULD be
    driving, and in the environment of a refresher test, that's exactly how
    they WOULD drive.  The long and short of it is that most people know
    how to drive safely and correctly, but when they are on the road,
    without a testing agent, they will drive however they like - using all
    of their bad habits.
    
    -Al
    

.35�those circumstances.  Don't forget that the lowest trained police drivers, only
.35�fit to drive pandas around town are better trained/skilled than most class 1 
.35�RoSPA drivers.

    From observation of drivers of pandas, rather than the white hat
    boys, I find this statement surprising.
    
    Ian.

    
    I remember that "Top Gear". It featured Peter Amey (Ames?), who
    I was fortunate enough to talk to late last year. His view is
    that the system is too rigidly taught, and that advances in
    car design haven't been reflected in changes to the system.
    He also feels a lot more emphasis ought be placed on attitude
    and the psychology of driving, eg. how is my driving perceived
    by other road users.
    
    He had some useful comments, and I agreed with a lot of what
    he had to say concerning the attitude of drivers. I'm not overly
    fussed about steering, but wouldn't advocate crossing your
    hands in normal driving (its uncomfortable, unnecessary and
    your grip on the wheel isn't as good as it is when holding it
    at 9 to 3). Similarly I don't think advanced driving organisations
    should teach people to change gear while braking, doing one
    thing at a time is easier - and as most drivers can't change gear
    properly, teaching them to heel and toe seems a trifle ambitious.
    
    Bi||

Most people know how to drive properly and can turn it on at the drop of a 
hat - ie during a re-test?  Wrong!  Most people have forgotten everything they
learned - and what they learned wasn't that good.  How many people learned to
drive cars when going down through the gears was desirable?  How many people
know what line they should take across a roundabout or when they should turn 
their fog lights on?  I fully support Bill's point about driver education, it's
the only way forward.

Dave

PS.  Take 10 police drivers and 10 of us (both at random from the two groups)
and I know which group will be better...

    
    Most POLICE drivers seem to have forgotten what they learnt too!
    
    I'm not talking about the Motorway police now, but these highly
    trained (note I don't say qualified!) Panda drivers. They wander
    across roundabouts, they don't signal (and I assume they don't use
    their mirrors either, otherwise they're even worse drivers than
    I imagine!) and they pay scant regard to the speed limits (They can't
    ALL be on emergency calls).
    
    No doubt we should all aspire to a better driving level, but please
    don't hold Panda drivers up as an example. I'd need to drive worse
    rather than better to reach their level!
    
    They may have been trained better, but I don't see them using it!
    
    Mark
    
    

Re: .40

You seem to think that police vehicles can only exceed speed limits under
certain circumstances.

By law any vehicle being used for police purposes is exempt from speed
limits.  There there may be force standing orders about exceeding speed
limits, but I doubt whether you or I will get sight of them.

jb

re .41

I was fairly convinced that they also had to adhere to the speed limits except
when attending an emergency ... 

    
    Re .41

    There wasn't a question as to whether it was 'legal' or not, but rather
    if they were any good as drivers. I don't consider people who drive
    carelessly to be good drivers and I doubt your average Chief Constable
    does either!
    
    Mark 
    

    re.42: that's the rule in Germany, Switzerland, France, and Austria, as
    far as I know for sure. It would surprise me if it were different in
    the other "continental" countries.
    
    Confirmingly yours,
    
    Chris

	Also Re. 42 and last

	Yes, the same applies in Holland. Police vehicles are supposed to
	adhere to the speed limit UNLESS they have their pretty blue lights
	on.

	Mind you, I've seeen one or two of their Porsche Carrera drivers out
	in the early morning doing *slightly* more than the limit :-)

	Gordon

    probably had a call from their wives saying dinner is on the table..!!
    :-) :-) :-)

    
    In this country, you can pass your test without :
      1)Ever having driven on a motorway (in fact you're not allowed on
        until you have passed)
      2)Ever having driven in the dark.
      3)Ever having parked the car between two others
      4)Ever having driven in bad weather (lessons are cancelled if it's
          snowing, aren't they)
      5)etc etc etc
    
    Maybe the test should be changed such that once you have 'passed' the
    first part - further lessons are required for motorway/night driving
    etc (That's how it is in Germany I think - or at least, you have to do
    so many kilometers of town/country/autobahn driving before you pass)
    

Re: .-1

Great!!!  What about people in (say) the Isle of Syke, who are over 100 miles
from a motorway.  It is absolutely unreasonable to expect them to travel to
where there is a motorway just to do a driving test.

Some of the other points are valid though.  I only know how to park easily
because I was taught in the US.

jb

	It's not just motorway driving, it includes dual carriageways
    which also require the same skills. You're correct Elaine, in Germany
    you have to log a set amount of hours in different driving
    environments. There's also a minimum amount of tuition depending
    on your age (I think it's your age divided by 2 and rounded gives
    the minimum number of hours). You also have to do all training
    with qualified instructors (no going round on L plates with your
    best mate in the passenger seat), and there is compulsory first-aid
    training and a written test (it's a wonder that anyone ever get's
    past all of this to get a licence).
       
    Jan

    
    There's nothing to stop learners driving on dual carriageways in
    Britain. All this talk about motorway driving needing special
    skills is rubbish. Once you've driven on any multicarriageway road
    you know the method for driving on a motorway.
    
    The trouble is very few people apply any of those rules on the
    motorway!
    
    Mark

    Nothing to stop them driving on dual carriageways but while I was
    learning I was never taken on a dual carriageway and shown how to.
    During the test we never left the confines of the town, and probably
    didn't exceed 50 mph during the 20 minute test, oh yes there were
    a few questions asked about motorway traffic signs, great preperation.
       
    Jan

    
    If motorway driving doesn't require 'special skills' why can't
    learners drive on motorways?
    
    Bi||.

    
    Re .52
    
    You tell me.
    
    Presumably because it's a faster road and the chances of learners
    having a SERIOUS accident are greater. The whole idea of the motorway
    system is to allow FAST travel between various places, learners
    usually drive slowly (as they are less cofident) and would cause
    hold ups. I still don't see that this is a case for claiming that
    people need special training to drive on Motorways.
    
    There are a lot of forms of transport barred from motorways and
    nearly all because of their slow speed.
    
    Mark 

        
    

    BSM do run special motorway courses for people who have just passed
    their test..they must think it worthwhile.
    
    
    re Limiting learners to a certain cc. NOT a good idea. When I first
    passed I had NO car, but borrowed my Mums. She thought it was great, as
    I good pick up my brothers and run errands for her. Now if the law
    stated I could only drive cars under a certain cc, I would never have
    got all the practise I did.
    
    Greg
    
    

    
    BSM no doubt make a CHARGE for these courses? Of course they think
    they're worthwhile!
    
    Seriously, some people would be nervous of driving on motorways,
    but in reality it's only the behaviour of other drivers which make
    them anything different to drive on. There are 3 lane A roads in
    this country, what's the difference between them and a motorway
    (or dual carriageways and 2 lane motorways)?
    
    Mark

	Well, as most people seem to in agreement that SOME form of multi-
	carriageway driving would be a good idea, how about :-

	1. Learner drivers MUST do x miles on multi-carriageway roads, not
	   neccesarily motorway.

	2. To enforce this, every learner driver MUST have at least, say 5
	   lessons with a registered/approved driving instructor.

	Gordon

	FWIW In Holland you have to learn via a driving school and motorway
	     driving is a compulsory part of the course. Can't say I know
	     how those who live on one of the small islands do their motorway 
	     practice ?!

    
    Why not do an apprenticeship?
    
    The key to good driving appears to be a mixture of training and
    experience. Why not introduce a scheme where people can only take
    a test after having had EITHER a set number of lessons (totalling
    a set number of hours) OR have reached a standard (agreed by a police
    officer/driving school) that makes them suitable for a test.
    
    Obviously this method is open to abuse by unscrupulous driving schools
    who won't say that someone is up to the standard before they've
    done the required number of lessons, but from my experience that
    isn't a big problem as driving schools soon loose interest in quick
    learners to concentrate on the slower (and more lucrative) learner.
    Any school which refused suitable drivers would soon get a bad name
    and any school which accepted bribes in return for the authorisation
    would be banned from instructing.
    
    The overall effect of this would be to prevent inexperienced drivers
    from 'fluking' through the test and cut down the number of tests
    taken by people with no hope of passing. The lower number of people
    taking tests would, hopefully allow examiners to make the test more
    exacting and cover more types of driving.
    
    Mark 

I have noticed that a lot of congestion on our motorways is caused when one
slow vehicle overtakes a slower vehicle, e.g. two lorries.

This causes a bottleneck due to the single lane left for other vehicles to
overtake.  The resulting effect is a bunching of vehicles behind the lorries
all travelling as slowly as the slowest vehcle in the right hand lane.

The point I am trying to make is that if learner drivers are allowed on to
our over-crowded motorways then due to the above phenomenon we will experience:

    - more delays,
    - more congestion,
    - more bad driving ( due to frustration, etc... ),
    - more accidents,
    - more deaths,
    - more chaos...

I agree with a couple of the previous replies when they say that there should
be more training after the initial test before learner drivers are allowed
onto our motorways.


Regards

Steven


P.S. In the above situation most of the overtaking drivers are usually spaced
     1 metre apart in the fast lane all trying to aggressively make the driver
     in front pull over into the centre lane so that the he/she can intimidate
     the next driver to pull over etc....

P.S.S.  Why are most British drivers so selfish, dangerous, aggressive
        self-centred, defensive, and reactionary?
        But I suppose that is another note.

    
    Re: .50
    
    
>	    	All this talk about motorway driving needing special
>    skills is rubbish. Once you've driven on any multicarriageway road
>    you know the method for driving on a motorway.
    
    That explains why the majority of motorway drivers only use two lanes
    at the most....

Re.59    
�    That explains why the majority of motorway drivers only use two lanes
�    at the most....

   Two? I thought they only used one! The one I want to use!

   
>	    	All this talk about motorway driving needing special
>    skills is rubbish. Once you've driven on any multicarriageway road
>    you know the method for driving on a motorway.
    
    
This helps to explain why the quality of motorway driving is so poor when
people have this type of attitude.  It shows the lack of awareness and caring
which is dangerous and short sighted.

Steven

    
    ...there are also a large number of people who are not yet aware that
    the speed limit on dual-carriageways is 70...
    
    You do not get the high average speeds on these roads as you do on the
    motorways, thus practicing on these roads does not teach anyone about
    the accurate judging of the speed of cars coming up from behind.
    
    Too many people assume that noone does more than 68 on the motorways...
    I make no comment or judgement on the legality of exceeding the
    speedlimit.
    
    I would like to see more of those "public awareness" short films on the
    television - snippets from the highway code. You never know, it may be
    those same people who cause havoc on the motorways ("I'm doing 70
    therefore I can't go in the slow lane") who believe everything they see
    on television :-)

    
    Re. 61
    
    Ok then Steve,
    
    enlighten us. What IS the difference?
    
    Mark (He of the short sighted attitude)
    
    

Yeah,

The only difference I can think of between a motorway and a multi-carriageway
road is that you sometimes get right turns on a multi-carriageway road, oh
and you don't meet too many bicycles or learners on Motorways!

Mark.

Re: .56

>	Well, as most people seem to in agreement that SOME form of multi-
>	carriageway driving would be a good idea, how about :-

I agree... but

>	1. Learner drivers MUST do x miles on multi-carriageway roads, not
>	   neccesarily motorway.

In the UK this is impractical, because there are many places where the
nearest such road is tens of miles away.  It might be feasible to require
some driving on these roads if they are available within a limited distance.

>	2. To enforce this, every learner driver MUST have at least, say 5
>	   lessons with a registered/approved driving instructor.

That seems very reasonable.  It may also cut down on the number or people
who fail the test due to inadequate (or incompetent) preparation.

jb

   Re : the Multi-carriageway/Motorway squabble

   Lane discipline is just as important on both.
   Assuming that speed limits are obeyed (ok - big assumption), the
   multi-carriageway road is much more dangerous. Multi-carriageway
   roads have....

   - No barriers to protect you from oncoming traffic
   - Very slow moving vehicles (tractors etc)
   - Less warning of junctions ahead (1 mile m/way �mile other)
   - Traffic preparing to turn right in outermost lane
   - Traffic crossing at junctions
   - Traffic lights
   - Roundabouts 
   - No hard shoulder for breakdowns
   - Shops,
   - Buses,
   - Children
   - Pedestrians 
   - Animals crossing

    
   The one difference IMO is the likelihood that users of motorways are
   doing longer journies than those on A roads - and that does require
   education on things like - minimal car maintenance (oil/water/tyres)
   before setting off, stopping regularly etc. But this education does not 
   need to be provided in the car.

   Richard.

re: .65
    
> >	1. Learner drivers MUST do x miles on multi-carriageway roads, not
> >	   neccesarily motorway.
> 
> In the UK this is impractical, because there are many places where the
> nearest such road is tens of miles away.  It might be feasible to require
> some driving on these roads if they are available within a limited distance.

    In that case it won't bother these testees that their new license
    doesn't allow them to drive on multi-carriageway roads and/or
    motorways. That is, if you want to have a license that will allow you
    on these roads that its up to *you* to make sure that you take a
    "motorway-included" test (a bit like passing your test in an automatic
    doesn't allow you to drive a manual car).
    
    Just an idea.
    
    Colin.

   
>>	    	All this talk about motorway driving needing special
>>    skills is rubbish. Once you've driven on any multicarriageway road
>>    you know the method for driving on a motorway.
>>    
>>    
>>This helps to explain why the quality of motorway driving is so poor when
>>people have this type of attitude.  It shows the lack of awareness and caring
>>which is dangerous and short sighted.
>>
>>Steven
>>    
>    Re.61
>    
>    Ok then Steve,
>    
>    enlighten us. What IS the difference?
>    
>    Mark (He of the short sighted attitude)
    

I think you have just supported my statement ;^)


But more seriously please read all the previous notes on this subject.

OR if you would like to discover for yourself what it is like to experience
motorway madness just try to drive up the M1 on a Friday night or down the
M1 on a Sunday night, or indeed around the Peripheric (spelling?, i.e. the
Paris ring-road) at practically anytime.

Ho Hum

Steven

P.S. I'd rather be skiing, but you also get loonies there too!!!

P.S.S.  22 days to go .....  

    Steve,
    
    We all know that some people drive like idiots on the motorway,
    nobody disputes that, BUT how does driving on a motorway differ
    from driving on a mulitcarriageway road in terms of rules? That's
    the question you so wittily side-stepped.
    
    Your comment about my statement, that once you've driven on a 
    multicarriageway road you know how to drive on a motorway, explaining
    why motorway driving is so poor, clearly implies that you drive
    differently on the motorway.
    
    So tell us what you know that we don't. Do you always keep in the
    middle lane on a motorway for instance? Or maybe you overtake on
    the inside?
    
    As far as I, and it appears other uninformed people, are aware the
    golden rule is to travel in the most left hand lane available (on
    British motorways, the Horrifique is a law unto itself!). This rule
    applies on Motorways, dual carriageways, and (in a way) to single
    carriageways, but you seem to consider this unsuitable for motorway
    driving and consider it to be the reason for the low quality of
    motorway driving. You are also supposed to leave a reasonable
    distance between yourself and the car in front.
    
    I suspect that if everybody had the brains to remember these rules
    motorways would be much more pleasant and safer places. Sadly very
    few do.
    
    Mark
    
    PS I'd rather be skiing too, except the bl**dy snow's melting! :^(
     
    

    
    Of course the same rules apply, the problem is simply that motorway
    driving presents a far greater 'challenge' than driving on a
    dual carriageway. A third lane causes an exponential rise in complexity,
    low speeds aren't tolerated by other motorists, and drivers rely on
    the skill and observation of those around them. 
    
    Add to this the fact that learners often rely on knowing a particular
    junction, rather than learning a technique applicable to every condition
    (analagous to the way you studied the roads in your test area before
    your learners test, I expect) and you may begin to see why some people
    think that motorway driving requires additional tuition.
    
    Bi||

    
    Bill,
    
    There's no question that it's beneficial to learn the technique,
    but would you really fancy having learners running wild on the 
    Motorway?
    
    As you say, the rules are no different it's the application which
    is and that is what comes with experience. Fortunately I can't
    imagine ANY government letting learners onto the ever busier motorways.
    
    The idea of a J plate ('J'ust passed) is probably not a bad idea,
    but so many motorway drivers treat their fellow drivers with smug
    disrespect that there is little doubt that they'd be treated as
    badly as 'L' plated drivers on urban and rural roads frequently
    are.
    
    The answer is to make the test tougher not to merely add another
    bit to it. If people aren't fit to drive don't let them out on ANY
    road.
    
    Mark

RE: .69

Mark

>    As you say, the rules are no different it's the application which
>    is and that is what comes with experience. Fortunately I can't
>    imagine ANY government letting learners onto the ever busier motorways.
    
        
Exactly!!

The rules are the same overtaking-wise, speed limit-wise, etc., its just that
the environment is different.

Generally speaking ( I hate people who generalise ), it's faster, there are
more lanes to play in, drivers are generally more aggressive, etc..

In other words you have to be a relatively experienced driver to not put
yourself and others in danger when driving on our overcrowded motorways during
the rush hour.



<enter_silly_remark_here>

Steven


P.S. Mark, I'm no saint when it comes to driving, but I generally don't break
     the rules in the way you have implied.

    
    Steve,
    
    Right now we've agreed that the rules are the same, do you have
    any suggetions as to HOW people could learn to drive on a motorway
    as a learner without endangering themselves and others even more
    than they would as inexperienced drivers?
    
    I didn't really think you would break the rules as I described,
    it just seemed to me that you were implying that there was a different
    set of RULES to be learnt for motorway driving.
    
    Mark    

My introduction to real motorway driving was travelling from Milan to Rome in
1966!  None of your piddling little english m-way driving there.  We even have
some of it on film (movie camera on the dash) and it makes today's M4/25/nn
look like toytown.

On the other hand, I well remember my first wife being PETRIFIED when she first
ventured onto the M1 to drive from Sheffield to Derby in the late 70's.  Mind
you there were the usual SALT rules at the M1/M18 junction and they were
building the Catcliffe exit .....

Now, having said all this (*all* you ask??!!!), I must admit to never having 
read such a load of "holier-than-thou" replies than in this topic.  Problem is,
it just highlights what is the real problem for all new drivers - the rest of us
are too darned intolerant.  We expect the DoT to test people to a standard
where they can display basic road sense yet we complain when the 400 mile total
new driver doesn't exhibit the same skills as those of us who've been driving
20,000 miles a year for the last 15 years.  I estimate I passed the half million
miles last year in my driving life and I STILL do stupid things ocassionally.
Who admits to NEVER doing so?

Look to the topic title.  Get down off your high horses.  Slow down the pace of
your life for just a few moments to reflect on the difficulties and dangers
that anyone in any strange new situation faces and then show just a little
tolerance.  If everyone in DEC showed 1% more tolerance and care than they do
at present, we'd probably see major improvements in raod safety, and even more
reduction in stress levels.  For all of us.

Brian

    
    Brian,
    
    One of the problems which hasn't been addressed recently in this
    note is that many 400 mile drivers show more consideration than
    the 200,000 mile driver. They haven't been sullied by the salesman-in
    -the-boot or the MLOC or the hat at 25 mph.
    
    The biggest motorway offenders are NOT the freshly qualified drivers
    they are the people who regularly drive on motorways (and often
    long distances) who think that they are great drivers. I often hear
    people say "Well I travel 200 miles a day, so I must be a good driver",
    but these people are often the worst drivers as they get complacent
    and arrogant about people who use the roads less than them.
    
    The real problem on motorways isn't the newly qualified driver,
    but the Sierra equipped Salesman doing his best Ayrton Senna
    impression.
    
    
    Mark

    re .75 - I agree!!  
    
    I've only been driving for three months, and I was petrified when
    I first went on a Motorway.  However, I took things calmly, and
    tried to show consideration etc for everyone else.  I soon learned
    that this makes you the odd one out, esp. on Motorways.  Little
    things like lorries pulling out into you, bigger cars cutting across
    you for not driving faster than 80mph.  None of us is perfect, but
    we are all capable of taking a little more care.
    
    Mikef

RE: .73

Mark

You asked for my suggestion on how learners can become more experienced at
driving on motorways.  Well here is my 2p worth:

    - maybe a two-tier test with basic and ( relatively ) advanced skills,
    - motorway driving lessons in non-rush hour driving conditions,
    - written tests as in other countries ( to ensure understanding ),
    - re-tests every 1/2/5 years

But the problem as I see it is the current attitude of a lot drivers that is at
fault.  It is the selfish behaviour of people cutting each other up, pushing in,
being aggressive, etc, that needs to be addressed.

Anyway 19 days to go.

Steven

    
    You're right about the attitude problem. The real problem is that
    we're looking at addressing an existing problem of experienced drivers
    rather than learners. 
    
    Mark
    
    PS 19 eh? I've only got 12 and it's snowed in Austria this weekend!
    :^)
    
    
     

do folk joining a motorway via slip road have equal priority to th M-way as 
those already on it  ?


...Art.

No, the joining folks don't have equal priority, it's treated as junction.
However, most people aim to fit and merge with the traffic on the motorway, ie
pick a gap and slide into it.  People on the motorway tend to slip over a lane
to let things join (especially large things).

Dave

      What happens if you cannot fit in?  In  my little car, I don't
    have enough power to speed up...should I slow down and wait for
    a gap, should I carry on to the hard shoulder, should I stop?  
    
    Mikef

    It's the same as any other "give way" junction - if you can't fit in,
    you stop and wait until you can.
    
    Jeff.

wait until a Beemer comes up behind and pushes you enough to gain speed to fit
into the next gap, which of course is just 2.379" longer than your own car ...

8^}

    re: .85

	Beemer is american slang for BMW...
    

What is British Slang for BMW?

I know that you lot call Mercedes 'Mercs'.  Ford has a brand that is more
luxurious than your standard Ford call Mercury.  We call Mercury cars 'Mercs'.

-Al 

    British slang for BMW (the repeatable one)
    is just "BM"

    
    I call 'em BMWs!
    
    Mark

What I call 'em is certainly printable...

"By far the most powerful, responsive, confortable car that I have ever owned".
8-)



Either Ford, Vauxhall (GM), Renault, etc... are doing much different things in
Britain than they are in the US, or we are on different planets.

    In the US, Bimmer is for BMW cars while Beemer is for BMW motorcycles.
    
    Dave

BMW's are also often called "Black Man's Wagon". Second Hand BMW's are supposed
to be favoured by Afro-Carribeans.

Mark.

P.S. I think a new Vauxhall Cavalier L is nicer than a BMW 316i anyday. They
give excellent value for money, and (from what I remember of a BMW), a similar
high quality interior.

I guess I can't relate to what a BMW 316 is like because a loaded (electric
everything, alloy wheels, speed rated tires, etc...) 325i is the base model that
they sell here.