M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 07:44 Mike P wrote: > On 29 June, 12:36, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Mike P" <max....(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:9a1e18a0-fa15-4469-b406-50f73aeaca9f(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 >>>>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >>>>>> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >>>>>> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older >>>>>> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back >>>>>> these facts up. >>>>> I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton >>>>> car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - >>>>> the >>>>> probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the >>>>> accident >>>>> rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it >>>>> wouldn't >>>>> be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they >>>>> indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. >>>>> B2003 >>>> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >>>> licence then? >>> I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for >>> 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. >>> Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give >>> them *big* incentives not to crash.. >> I prefer the notion that *everyone* (with a few obvious exceptions) has to >> learn to ride a pedal bicycle and then a motorcycle before being allowed to >> drive a car. > > That's what I did, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. > > Mike P > > I did too and I still cycle as well as drive.It's not a bad idea. Worth considering at least. Bod
From: boltar2003 on 29 Jun 2010 09:17 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:36:05 +0100 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:53 +0100 >> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >>> licence then? >> >> 20 or 21. Teenagers are in general just too immature and irresponsible. I >know >> I was. I'd be happy with them still being able to ride a small moped up to >21 >> since on that they only risk killing themselves and in the process of riding >> it they'd become a lot more road aware. >> >> B2003 >> > > > >But you'd get the reaction from many, that youngsters of 18 can fight >for their country but are not old enough to drive a car, not fair etc. Well, whether allowing kids to sign up for the military when they're perhaps still a bit naive, gung ho and perhaps not fully aware of what the consequences of war are is a good idea is another argument. Or perhaps thats the best age to get them for that very reason. Anyway , doesn't change my belief that a lot of teenagers don't have the maturity to drive a car on the public road safely. If thats unfair then so be it. B2003
From: Brimstone on 29 Jun 2010 09:28 "Mike P" <max.cat(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:0bb42ea0-1cb7-4881-adf0-f8398a6851f4(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 29 June, 12:36, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Mike P" <max....(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:9a1e18a0-fa15-4469-b406-50f73aeaca9f(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 >> >> > bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >> >> >> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >> >> >> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, >> >> >> older >> >> >> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies >> >> >> back >> >> >> these facts up. >> >> >> > I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 >> >> > ton >> >> > car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety >> >> > records - >> >> > the >> >> > probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the >> >> > accident >> >> > rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then >> >> > it >> >> > wouldn't >> >> > be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they >> >> > indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. >> >> >> > B2003 >> >> >> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >> >> licence then? >> >> > I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for >> > 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. >> > Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give >> > them *big* incentives not to crash.. >> >> I prefer the notion that *everyone* (with a few obvious exceptions) has >> to >> learn to ride a pedal bicycle and then a motorcycle before being allowed >> to >> drive a car. > > That's what I did, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. > Strangely, the first driving test I passed was on a Chieftain tank. :-)
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 09:38 Brimstone wrote: > > "Mike P" <max.cat(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:0bb42ea0-1cb7-4881-adf0-f8398a6851f4(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> On 29 June, 12:36, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> "Mike P" <max....(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >>> >>> news:9a1e18a0-fa15-4469-b406-50f73aeaca9f(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> > On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> >> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >>> >> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 >>> >> > bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> >> >> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >>> >> >> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >>> >> >> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In >>> general, >> >> older >>> >> >> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies >>> >> >> back >>> >> >> these facts up. >>> >>> >> > I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive >>> a 1 >> > ton >>> >> > car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety >> >>> > records - >>> >> > the >>> >> > probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the >>> >> > accident >>> >> > rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) >>> then >> > it >>> >> > wouldn't >>> >> > be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents >>> they >>> >> > indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. >>> >>> >> > B2003 >>> >>> >> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >>> >> licence then? >>> >>> > I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for >>> > 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. >>> > Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give >>> > them *big* incentives not to crash.. >>> >>> I prefer the notion that *everyone* (with a few obvious exceptions) >>> has to >>> learn to ride a pedal bicycle and then a motorcycle before being >>> allowed to >>> drive a car. >> >> That's what I did, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. >> > Strangely, the first driving test I passed was on a Chieftain tank. :-) > > What mpg was it? or should that be gpm? A wild guess; 1 gallon per mile? Bod
From: Clive George on 29 Jun 2010 09:58
On 29/06/2010 12:36, Brimstone wrote: > I prefer the notion that *everyone* (with a few obvious exceptions) has > to learn to ride a pedal bicycle and then a motorcycle before being > allowed to drive a car. I might go a little further than that. There's a difference being able to ride a bike/motorbike and having suffient experience with it. I suspect most of the people who drive dangerously round two wheelers can ride a bike. |