nightjar wrote:
    > Terry wrote:
    > > Writing from the experience of driving probably some million
    > > miles in North America, mainly in this part of Canada for about
    > > the last 46 years; and within the last 30 months a three/four
    > > week visit back to UK. British drivers were/are, in my opinion,
    > > MUCH better. Possibly better UK driving IS due to better
    > > training, a different attitude and better (stiffer?) testing?
    >
    > I find this and other similar replies quite worrying.

Worrying in what way?

In the implication that North American driving standards are [Richard
Milhous Nixon] apalling?

Such replies don't surprise me: I have been reading r.a.d for a while
now (and am seeing this thread there as my news server is in the US
while I'm in the UK), and so have an idea of what a good few North
Americans think of their driving standards and how several of the
posters I respect would like to have European - particularly German, but
also British - standards over their way.

    > I consider the average standard of driving in the UK to be in
    > serious need of improvement.

Motion seconded.

    > Situational awareness, which the new measure is, in some way,
    > intended to address, is particularly bad, with many drivers
    > having no idea what other traffic is around them or even what
    > hazard is waiting for them further down the road.

Well said, sir!

What do I think is the main key to good driving?

To plagiarise His Tonyness: observation, observation, observation.

Gav wrote:
    > James Silverton wrote:
    > > Alex Rodriguez wrote:
    > >
    > > > Don't I wish the US had similar standards.

    > > Ah! all these expert drivers who realise that the others are incompetent!
    >
    > It about sums up a good percentage of the posters on rec.autos.driving

Well, James and Gav, I'd say that a fair number of the "regulars" on
r.a.d *do* know what they are talking about when they make remarks like
that one by Alex.

That said, I also reckon that some of them are technically skillful but
seem to be a bit too pushy on the roads.

And there *are* some who apparently think they are God's gift to
motoring but show remarkably little evidence of their claimed
competence.

Oh, and then there are the likes of "Judy"/"Pride of America" and Carl
Taylor; not to mention some fellow who uses many handles but habitually
signs himself as if his parents named him Michael Hunt.

Ricardo wrote:
    > Terry wrote:

    > > Some newer vehicles (including ours) seem to have interlock; i.e.
    > > engine won't crank at all unless clutch fully depressed (whether
    > > in gear or not)!
    >
    > Newer vehicles? Mine from '89 has this annoying "feature"!

Annoying?

Diabolical, more like - at least unless there is a way to override it on
those rare occasions when starting in gear is actually desirable.

Call me old fashioned or whatever if you like, but I reckon that my
machine (car, computer, or whatever) is *my* slave ...

Alan Harrison wrote:

    > Many modern British cars are now fitted with high-level brake
    > lights. It's no joke being stuck behind some twat at traffic
    > lights who can't be arsed to put his hand-brake on, and instead
    > keeps his foot down, blinding the driver behind with an array
    > of red lights in his rear window fit for an Amsterdam knocking
    > shop.

Come on, now, Alan!

The intensity of those lights falls off as the square of your distance
from them, so all you need to do is to stop a little further back, which
tends to be a good thing anyway for a whole host of other reasons.

That said, and particularly at night, it *is* generally a good idea to
apply the handbrake, select neutral, and release the footbrake.

On my way home in a while, I may well find myself (properly) stopped at
a red light when the next fellow comes into view behind. My standard
procedure for that is to switch the brake lights on until it is clear
that he is stopping for me and to switch them off before he actually
stops.

In message , Brandon
Sommerville writes
    >In this case the majority would be acting in pure short term self
    >interest (for financial reasons).

Agreed! Welcome to the real world :0)
    >>I assume that most readers are aware that a large number of disqualified
    >>drivers re-offend by driving while disqualified at least three times
    >>before any meaningful penalty is employed to curb the habit.
    >Impound their cars.

No! They only do that in then UK for smuggling a few extra smokes or a
few bottles of booze over the recommended [and incidentally quite
illegal] limit. Then it's a customs matter purely based on monitory
values and the greed of the chancellor . It's quite okay to risk the
lives of citizens on the roads by issuing ineffectual penalties for
serious driving offences, but one can lose the car for importing a boot
load of booze purchased quite legally in France.

We already have enough knee jerk cock eyed regulations in the UK that
are almost totally unenforceable. This situation is made considerably
worse by the antics of our weak minded judiciary most of who are so far
removed from the real world it's become a joke. It is quite possible for
an offender to serve under three years in prison for killing two people
by driving his car up on the pavement while intoxicated. He was however
able to drive as soon as he was released as he was not disqualified from
driving at all.

The simple fact is that the driving test is an insignificant irritation
to the average driver and a money tree for the greedy government,
nothing more.


--
Roy

In article , Robert Briggs
wrote:

    > Alan Harrison wrote:
    >
    > > Many modern British cars are now fitted with high-level brake
    > > lights. It's no joke being stuck behind some twat at traffic
    > > lights who can't be arsed to put his hand-brake on, and instead
    > > keeps his foot down, blinding the driver behind with an array
    > > of red lights in his rear window fit for an Amsterdam knocking
    > > shop.
    >
    > Come on, now, Alan!
    >
    > The intensity of those lights falls off as the square of your distance
    > from them, so all you need to do is to stop a little further back,

The intesity of a point source falls of as the square of the distance.
A brake light is not a point source, its an extended source. The
brightness (energy into unit solid angle) of an extended source is
invariant with distance.

Until the brake light is far enough away to be perceived as a point
source, at the diffraction limit of the eye, its just as bright as it
was right behind it, just smaller.

--
Barry
Barry@netbox.com
------
(I should put something down here).

In article , Terry
wrote:

    > Oops. Got to remember I'm back here now, where drivers don't
    > follow the rules! Don't expect them to actually stop at a 'STOP'
    > sign,

Most of the stop signs in the US are unecessary, in the UK you have
many more Give Ways (Yeilds). Most of the time not stopping at a
(unecessary) stop sign is not dangerous.

--
Barry
Barry@netbox.com
------
(I should put something down here).

On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 20:58:05 +0000, Robert Briggs
wrote:

    >> Newer vehicles? Mine from '89 has this annoying "feature"!
    >Annoying?
    >Diabolical, more like - at least unless there is a way to override it on
    >those rare occasions when starting in gear is actually desirable.
    >Call me old fashioned or whatever if you like, but I reckon that my
    >machine (car, computer, or whatever) is *my* slave ...

Yeah I totally agree. Clutch interlock, 96mph speed limiter, yada
yada yada... they all suck, but what to do? The car's not worth
enough to bother with attempting to overcome these little
annoyances, and besides it needs more critical work done (faulty
water pump for one). One day I'll sell the old beastie and get a
Bimmer or maybe a Nissan 240SX (might just be able to scrape enough
$$$ together, who knows).

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav
vancouver bc canada
e-mail: sovietjamaicanguy yahoo ca

On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 06:12:12 GMT, Barry Twycross
wrote:

    >Most of the stop signs in the US are unecessary, in the UK you have
    >many more Give Ways (Yeilds). Most of the time not stopping at a
    >(unecessary) stop sign is not dangerous.

Quite true, but it is illegal, and a LEO can hide in the bushes or
up the X street and jump out and i$$ue a hefty citation for the
technical violation of running the unnecessary STOP sign. That was
my point in my reply and other postings re this issue.

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav
vancouver bc canada
e-mail: sovietjamaicanguy yahoo ca

On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 20:51:41 +0000, Robert Briggs
wrote:

    >That said, I also reckon that some of them are technically skillful but
    >seem to be a bit too pushy on the roads.

But we do try our damndest not to be. It's the likes of dumbassed
LLBs and the like who make our tempers flare. They, if anyone, are
the prime "victims" of any presupposed "pushiness".

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav
vancouver bc canada
e-mail: sovietjamaicanguy yahoo ca

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:08:24 +0000, Roy
wrote:

    >In a country where public transport systems are a joke in extremely bad
    >taste and where the generally law abiding motorist is regularly treated
    >as a bottomless money box used to fund ever more government
    >incompetence, this would be yet another example of creating criminals by
    >default.

This is pretty much the case in North America too, sad to say.

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav
vancouver bc canada
e-mail: sovietjamaicanguy yahoo ca

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:08:24 +0000, Roy wrote:

    >In message , Brandon
    >Sommerville writes
    >>What you're missing is that almost all of us (if not all!) would
    >>happily take any and all additional tests required to prove that
    >>competence, and would strive very hard to correct any problems that
    >>were uncovered by those tests.
    >Absolute rubbish based on a personal opinion that is totally divorced
    >from the facts. Pontificating on behalf of an un-named and un-registered
    >majority of UK drivers is foolish in the extreme.

Well, your first mistake is in assuming that I'm British, your second
is assuming that I'm talking about British drivers.

    >Up to and until the government do something sensible to curb the huge
    >numbers of unlicensed drivers, often driving untaxed and certainly
    >uninsured vehicles, there is little point in most of us applauding more
    >draconian stupidity perpetrated by ill advised and uninformed idiots.

How is demanding driving competence idiotic? While getting the
unlicensed and uninsured off the roads should be a priority, demanding
competence is always a good thing.

    >In a country where public transport systems are a joke in extremely bad
    >taste and where the generally law abiding motorist is regularly treated
    >as a bottomless money box used to fund ever more government
    >incompetence, this would be yet another example of creating criminals by
    >default.
    >Only yesterday figures were published concerning the number of
    >un-licensed vehicles within the Peterborough [City] area. The published
    >figure is in excess of 7000. I would just love to see how many of these
    >owners would like to see an increase in any costs associated with
    >motoring. In fact were a UK wide poll to be held to decide whether to
    >keep the driving test or to issue driving licenses for free to those
    >over 17 years old, no doubt the majority view would prove quite
    >interesting.

In this case the majority would be acting in pure short term self
interest (for financial reasons).

    >In a country where public transport systems are a joke in extremely bad
    >taste and where the generally law abiding motorist is regularly treated
    >as a bottomless money box used to fund ever more government
    >incompetence, this would be yet another example of creating criminals by
    >default.
    >Any attempt to deliberately increase the numbers of uninsured drivers on
    >UK roads should be firmly resisted. I would personally consider any
    >increase in the complexity or difficulty of the driving test to be
    >detrimental to the overall driving standards on UK roads as it will
    >almost certainly result in ever more unlicensed and therefore uninsured
    >drivers on our road network.
    >I assume that most readers are aware that a large number of disqualified
    >drivers re-offend by driving while disqualified at least three times
    >before any meaningful penalty is employed to curb the habit.

Impound their cars.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

The easy way is always mined.

Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote:

    > notvalid@antispam.net (Ricardo) writes:
    > > Otoh, one probably doesn't even NEED a driver's licence in the UK. I
    > > got by perfectly ok without one.
    >
    > Driving or not driving? Most of the UK's public transportation is
    > pretty crappy these days, and in all cases it's quite expensive. But
    > then what isn't too expensive in the UK?

Politicians and policemen can be bought reasonably cheaply.

notvalid@antispam.net (Ricardo) wrote in message news:...
    > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:57:42 -0000, "CeeJay"
    > wrote:


    > >If you
    > >don't have a license, you have no insurance. If you have neither of those,
    > >you are shafted. You *will* spend some time filling out forms in a concrete
    > >room.
    >
    > If one were caught *driving* on *public roads* with no
    > license/insurance, that's very true. While I never held a license in
    > the UK, I never did drive there, so I never broke the law.

Not exactly. The waters are muddied by European Union law. If an EU
member state national (and, perhaps, the national of an EEA member
state -- Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein; and perhaps since 1 June
Switzerland as well) drives in an EU country with a license from an EU
(EEA? Swiss?) license, under EU law there can be no penalty more than
an "administrative fine". In any case, EU licenses may be exchanged,
and are supposed to be exchanged, for a local one within (I think it
is) one year.

Many foreign licenses, including Canadian ones (subject to proof of
having taken a test with a manual transmission or else accepting a
restricted license) may be exchanged for a British one without tests.

Foreign diplomats receive old-style red-book driver licenses while
posted to Britain; these are valid three years and cannot be renewed
unless the diplomatic status continues. Visiting NATO forces use
(usually) American or military licenses.

In view of the absence of passport stamps for EU/EEA/Swiss nationals
in Britain (other EU countries, but not Ireland, require registration
with the commune) there is no obvious way of knowing whether such a
person has exceeded the one year. It is likely that his insurance is
still valid, even if one year has passed. The Motor Insurance
Directive anyway would require the insurance Board from the country of
licensing (or purported licensing) of the EU vehicle to pay any
claims, whether there is a policy in force or not. But that doesn't
apply if the car has UK plates, only with foreign EU plates.

Mostly the naked truth about licensing and insurance comes out only
after a serious accident with personal injury, when there is enough at
stake to warrant real investigation.


Some references:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/147/ (on the Fourth Motor Insurance
Directive)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_m...inances/insur/ (EU
site)
http://www.aon.com/about/publication...echmatters.jsp
(Motor Insurance Database)
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/cons...439_do_001.pdf
(driver licence directive)
http://www.djh.dk/outcome/EU/Articles/Brenckle.html (EU regs and a bus
driver's imbroglio)

On 3 Nov 2002 03:41:28 -0800, akbar_rqvst@hotmail.com (Axqi Rqvst)
wrote:

    >Not exactly. The waters are muddied by European Union law. If an EU
    >member state national (and, perhaps, the national of an EEA member
    >state -- Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein; and perhaps since 1 June
    >Switzerland as well) drives in an EU country with a license from an EU
    >(EEA? Swiss?) license, under EU law there can be no penalty more than
    >an "administrative fine". In any case, EU licenses may be exchanged,
    >and are supposed to be exchanged, for a local one within (I think it
    >is) one year.
    >Many foreign licenses, including Canadian ones (subject to proof of
    >having taken a test with a manual transmission or else accepting a
    >restricted license) may be exchanged for a British one without tests.

But having an out-of-state or foreign licence is not the same as
having none at all, which was the case to which I was referring.

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav
vancouver bc canada
e-mail: sovietjamaicanguy yahoo ca