If you could make 3 changes to the rules of the road

superjosh9

ninty9er wrote: »

We'll leave you to break the news to all the people whose houses are going to have a road put through them so....oh wait...no houses....maybe no need for the road...so now we have a dual-carriageway to nowhere:rolleyes:

So, we should just leave the roads as they are? This place blows...

Wishbone Ash

bikki wrote: »

Id remove learner drivers from the road period.

It might be possible to learn to drive small vehicle on private roads but what would you propose articulated truck learners go?

Simona1986 wrote: »

Just back from the States and the "right turn on red" rule worked really well

The problem here though is that many motorists would not give way to pedestrians

jojo88 wrote: »

retest every ten years as compulsory

SteveC wrote: »

I'd also make it a mandatory to pass a theory test every time you renew your licence and at the same time reduce the life of a license to 5 years.

It would be very impractical for those of us who hold a licence in all categories. We'd spent half of our lives doing tests!

superjosh9 wrote: »

1) No two-way traffic

It's times like these when we need a huge 'roll eyes' icon.

superjosh9 wrote:

3) Get a better driving test. Who reverses around a corner? NO ONE should EVER reverse around a corner - so why in blazes is it in the test?

Why should no -one reverse around a corner? I've reversed around corners hundreds of times. If you have never done it you must be very inexperienced.

In the driving test it is known as the reversing manoeuvre and it is usually done on a bend - not a corner. The ability to reverse a vehicle safely is an important skill. It requires the driver to make proper observation, give way to traffic, be aware of everything going on around him, while maintaining complete control of the vehicle using the accelerator, clutch, footbrake, park brake and steering wheel. Whether the candidate has to ever perform the manoeuvre again is irrelevant.

Rovi wrote: »

the tester informed me at the start that he would, at some point during the test, slap the dashboard with his hand.
This was the signal for me to perform an emergency stop, and it could (in theory) occur anywhere and at any time during the test.
In reality, the tester could/would only do it when there was no danger of collecting someone else if/when it all went pear shaped; essentially, this meant that it would happen when there was little or no traffic around, and especially when there was no-one too close behind

Same here!

Gegerty

1. All cars must have speed limiters fitted. Prefably Intelligent ones that know the limit of the road you are on and restrict you to that. At the same time I'd review all speed limits and make them realistic, (meaning increasing most of them and having variable speeds depending on what hazards are on the road).

2. Everyone must resit their test every 5 years, with a period of grace if you fail for minor issues (some people need cars for work, its unrealistic to put them out of a job just because they have a habit of holding the wheel wrong etc).

3. Forced breaks for long journeys. Again I'd handle this through technology and would first put break points on or near all roads.

Hagar

No driving while wearing a hat of any kind, be it a Trilby, a flat cap or a Burberry Anto hat. Ban 'em all.

Run_to_da_hills

Turn left on a red light if there is nothing coming.
Ban "Baby on Board" cards and stickers.
Permit Motorcyclists to use bus and cycle lanes (Seen as most cyclists prefere to use the road rather than these)

kuro_man

No parking facing the traffic (and holding up both lanes to get out)

MINIMUM speeds on motorway entry slip-roads - how can people think merging into 120kph traffic at 60kph is somehow safe, I'll never know?

1-day traffic school for offenders

superjosh9

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If you have never done it you must be very inexperienced.

I'm gonna ignore those comments.

You should not be a moderator.

Seth Brundle

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Really, I've never seen a fog light thread in Motors:rolleyes:

Thats because people don't want a slap!

Gegerty wrote: »

1. All cars must have speed limiters fitted. Prefably Intelligent ones that know the limit of the road you are on and restrict you to that. At the same time I'd review all speed limits and make them realistic, (meaning increasing most of them and having variable speeds depending on what hazards are on the road).

What happens if for some reason you must drive over the speed limit? You could put a time limit on it (e.g. allow it for 5 or 10 seconds) but what happens when you are driving to a hospital with someone who is having a heart attack?

superjosh9 wrote: »

I'm gonna ignore those comments.

You should not be a moderator.

Why? Is a moderator not allowed to disclose their opinion?

superjosh9

kbannon wrote: »

Thats because people don't want a slap!


What happens if for some reason you must drive over the speed limit? You could put a time limit on it (e.g. allow it for 5 or 10 seconds) but what happens when you are driving to a hospital with someone who is having a heart attack?

Why? Is a moderator not allowed to disclose their opinion?

sure he is, but he's clearly stirring. Make the point about the reversing around the corner. Fair enough. Leave out the rest... it's an insult and nothing else.

-Chris-

1) Visibility - Compulsory dips on 24/7

2) Education - Learners only allowed to drive with an instructor until they pass the test (including night driving, motorway, parking, emergency stop). ROTR test required at every renewal of driving licence

3) Speed Limits - Overall limit increased to 160kmph, introduction of variable speed limits based on weather/visibility conditions, time of day, density of traffic etc.

superjosh9

AudiChris wrote: »

1) Visibility - Compulsory dips on 24/7

2) Education - Learners only allowed to drive with an instructor until they pass the test (including night driving, motorway, parking, emergency stop). ROTR test required at every renewal of driving licence

3) Speed Limits - Overall limit increased to 160kmph, introduction of variable speed limits based on weather/visibility conditions, time of day, density of traffic etc.

maybe have staged licences - like if you are <19 can't drive at certain time of night or maybe you have a max speed. I.e, that you have to have driven for a number of years before you really are a 'full' licence holder.

ninty9er

superjosh9 wrote: »

maybe have staged licences - like if you are <19 can't drive at certain time of night or maybe you have a max speed. I.e, that you have to have driven for a number of years before you really are a 'full' licence holder.

If everyone is required to learn with a proper instructor the necessity for a provisional licence once you pass your test is all but removed.

I'm not in favour of staged licences or different rules for different road users. Red tape=bad

AudiChris wrote: »

1) Visibility - Compulsory dips on 24/7

2) Education - Learners only allowed to drive with an instructor until they pass the test (including night driving, motorway, parking, emergency stop). ROTR test required at every renewal of driving licence

3) Speed Limits - Overall limit increased to 160kmph, introduction of variable speed limits based on weather/visibility conditions, time of day, density of traffic etc.

I think that's about bang on....very similar to what I had said, though with the proper instruction I don't see the necessity of a M-way limit.

superjosh9

ninty9er wrote: »

If everyone is required to learn with a proper instructor the necessity for a provisional licence once you pass your test is all but removed.

I'm not in favour of staged licences or different rules for different road users. Red tape=bad

yeh but how do you combat the fact that young, males keep crashing?

ninty9er

superjosh9 wrote: »

yeh but how do you combat the fact that young, males keep crashing?

We just did, their young male siblings/friends aren't legally allowed to teach them how to drive on a public road anymore

superjosh9

ninty9er wrote: »

We just did, their young male siblings/friends aren't legally allowed to teach them how to drive on a public road anymore

well time will tell what effect that has, but fair enough, good point.

also - I'd like to ban the LHD cars also!

-Chris-

ninty9er wrote: »

I think that's about bang on....very similar to what I had said,

Wow, just re-read your post! I'll get done for plagiarism! :D

peasant

superjosh9 wrote: »

also - I'd like to ban the LHD cars also!

first you question one motors mod and then you want to take the car away from another one (me)

You're skating on thin ice

superjosh9

peasant wrote: »

first you question one motors mod and then you want to take the car away from another one (me)

You're skating on thin ice

I. Dont. Care.

Steve

Rovi wrote: »

I didn't know it had been dropped from the test, that seems most peculiar to me.

galwaytt wrote: »

Same here - I had the same routine in my test, in 1988.

I did the test in '92 and it wasn't there.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It would be very impractical for those of us who hold a licence in all categories. We'd spent half of our lives doing tests!

A theory test wouldn't be that much of an inconvenience though? One test could cover all of your categories.


+1 to suggestions from 99er and AudiChris

blackbox

A test every 5 years might be overkill, but at the very least anyone who is banned from driving for any reason should have to go back to square 1 and do a theory test and apply for a learner permit.

As things stand, someone banned for 3 years for dangerous driving causing death simply gets his/her licence back without any test when the time is up (and sometimes sooner).

ninty9er

superjosh9 wrote: »

well time will tell what effect that has, but fair enough, good point.

also - I'd like to ban the LHD cars also!

I suggested that too...poor Peasant wasn't too impressed!!

fjon

Why's everyone in such a rush?
I don't see any benefit in increasing the motorway/ N-road limit. 100/120kph is enough in Ireland, and it's enough in most other countries.

Lane hogging is annoying, but (and I may be wrong) I believe this is covered in the rules of the road already.

I like the left on red idea, works really well in California.
Would be good to include some motorway driving into the driving test, but not practical (so many driving centres are nowhere near motorways).

craichoe

can someone explain the left on red concept ?

ninty9er

It's the same as having a filter lane with flashing amber except red instead of flashing amber.

Zube

fjon wrote: »

I don't see any benefit in increasing the motorway/ N-road limit.

Putting the motorway limit to 140 kph would not be an increase, it would just be an acknowledgment of the speed ordinary drivers safely use these roads today (except for the M50, obviously).

I drove the HQDC from Kilbeggan to Athlone at the current idiotic (temporary) limit of 100 kph just for a laugh the other day, and I passed no (zero) cars. A lot of cars passed me. Driving it at 130, I pass about as many cars as pass me.

Even when the limit is upped to 120, most traffic will be breaking that limit. What's the point of having a limit which is held in complete contempt like that?

fjon

Ok, so people drive 140+ on motorways, I realise that. But how is that any safer than 100?
Try driving 140kph on a windy day in a Punto or Corsa. Or try driving that speed at night when a deer or badger runs in front of you on the road...

-Chris-

fjon wrote: »

Ok, so people drive 140+ on motorways, I realise that. But how is that any safer than 100?
Try driving 140kph on a windy day in a Punto or Corsa. Or try driving that speed at night when a deer or badger runs in front of you on the road...

The speed limit is a limit, not a target. If your car or the surrounding conditions say you should be driving at 80kmph, then you should do that.

fjon

AudiChris wrote: »

The speed limit is a limit, not a target. If your car or the surrounding conditions say you should be driving at 80kmph, then you should do that.

Of course, but if you're in a one-lane N road where the speed "limit" is 140 you're not going to be very popular going 100. I would say most people would speed up a bit to accomodate the traffic behind them.

I still haven't seen any convincing argument for raising the motorway limit above 120.

Honey-ec

fjon wrote: »

I would say most people would speed up a bit to accomodate the traffic behind them.

Oh Lord, if only that were the case... *wistful sigh*

-Chris-

fjon wrote: »

Of course, but if you're in a one-lane N road where the speed "limit" is 140 you're not going to be very popular going 100. I would say most people would speed up a bit to accomodate the traffic behind them.

You'd obviously have to adjust the limit to match the road, backroads won't get 140kmph limits, nor will "single lane with hard shoulder" roads (hopefully).

I'd be of the firm opinion that, on an N-Road, if I'm only comfortable doing 80 in the car/conditions, and everyone behind me wants to go 100, I'm going to go 80. I won't be pressured into a higher speed.
I feel this is justified as long as I keep an eye on the rearview mirror and I keep my road position to the left as soon as I see a stretch where passing is possible.

fjon wrote: »

I still haven't seen any convincing argument for raising the motorway limit above 120.

Unfortunately, the only reason I can think of at the mo is "because we can". I could probably waffle about time saved on journeys, economic efficiency, benefits to productivity etc., but the reality is that I already do 140kmph on the motorway at the moment because I want to get somewhere quicker and I think the car and the road conditions are safe at that speed.
I feel safe at that speed and I doubt I'm alone, therefore I'd like the limit raised for those of us whose cars and driving skills are up to the challenge!