h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*pronk*

Wouldn't it be good if people that can't be bothered using their indicators had their licenses removed?

I've come too close to being run over too many times through trusting motorists to be telling the truth.

>> Wouldn't it be good if people that can't be bothered using their indicators had their licenses removed? <<

Ah, but what you fail to realise is that the orange lights at the corners of BMWs and Mercedes Benzes are, in fact, only used in diagnostic tests by licensed BMW/Mercedes Benz technicians, during the assembly or servicing of the vehicle. I know, it's inconvenient that they're placed exactly in the same place as indicators are on other types of car, but there is, in fact, no driver-usable control that can actually activate these lights. In fact, if you see a BMW or Mercedes Benz with any of these lights flashing, you should alert the driver to this fact so that he/she can immediately get the error which has caused this malfunction repaired.

RF

The other day I was cruising along as usual in my BMW coming onto one of my motorways, which was very busy with inferior cars.

First off, I couldn't believe that the volume of traffic DIDN'T slow down for me AT ALL as I came off the slip road! I had to squeeze into a barely big enough gap between two cars in order to get onto my motorway! (The driver of the car behind me did realise his mistake though and honked an apology to me with a long blast of his horn.)

Unbelievably, I had to do the same again before I could get to the BMW lane. (Why do underlings use this lane? Surely everyone knows it is for BMW drivers only?)

Anyway, once I was in the BMW lane and posing along at 110mph enjoying the adulation that the inferior car drivers were giving me, I noticed an inferior car ahead of me which was not only in the BMW lane of my motorway, but was driving at a ridiculous 70 mph!

Naturally, I got to within a foot or so of his rear bumper and flashed my headlights to remind him he shouldn't be in the BMW lane of my motorway and to get out of my way.

Of course, once he realised it was a BMW behind him, he did just that, but I could hardly believe it when he pulled straight back out behind me! He also tried to keep up with me and when he realised I would out-run him, he put on some blue lights in his front grill and urged me to get onto the hard shoulder so that he could congratulate me on my excellent car.

Needless to say, I was eager to oblige and when we had stopped, the man gave me a piece of paper confirming what I already knew - that my car goes fast! Apparently he wants everyone to know what a superior car I have, so I had to take my driver's licence to a Police Station to be sent away to have some points put on! (They're not free points either - they're £20 each and I was only allowed 3.) But the man at the Police Station said that because I drive a BMW, it won't be much longer before I earn the full 12 points, and then I won't even NEED a driving licence, so they will take it off me! See, now THAT's the sort of respect you get when you buy and drive a BMW.

at SWL and RF

who mentioned incentives?

Surely the only incentive people need is: you drive correctly, you get to keep your licence?

You would have thought the only incentive would be: you drive correctly, you won't die in an accident. But...

>>
Well presumably the set of those who partake in poor and dangerous driving intersects rather well with those who don't give a toss about paying for insurance or getting a license.

I daresay there are some excellent drivers who have no license or insurance but I'm guessing that's not generally the case.
<<

I think insurance and licencing are two different issues. Most people I know that don't have insurance are seriously poor (as in sometimes they can't afford proper food). I've known very few people that drive without a licence though. I think poverty would be a block to get a licence but you can get financial assistance to get a licence if it's for work, whereas you can't get assistance with insurance if you are very poor (which suggests that the State here considers insurance to be a luxury).

>>
One of the best new laws I've seen is where, if you are caught driving without tax or insurance, the car is taken off you on the spot and taken to the crusher. No appeals, no argument. Judging by the quite obvious glee on the faces of the Police enforcing it, they agree with the measure too.
<<

Is that for real?

Well! This morning, I was held up for twenty minutes at a junction because a different route was blocked so EVERYONE decided to sit in the yellow box, which held up two different and mostly clear main artery roads...

Why arent the police able to sit and tell people off!? (and give out fines if people dont accept they are wrong!) It is inconvenient if your route is blocked for legitimate reasons, why does that make it acceptable to be selfish and block other routes because you're impatient? You're still not going anywhere, no matter which side of the traffic lights you sit!

And it was everyone: buses, cars, vans, lorries... No particular section of society, no particular class or lifestyle... Just lots and lots of impatient, selfish and inconsiderate drivers.

I'm going to have a coffee now.

There are some areas that put cameras on the diamond boxes and anyone who parks as much as 1 inappropriate wheel gets a fine.

And yes Kea - as I'm sure someone will confirm, seizing and crushing cars is a measure enthusiastically adopted by some forces.

Ok, so let me get this right - you can have your car seized and destroyed for not paying car tax or having insurance, but you can speed at the risk of killing someone and get only a fine?

That's about the size of it

Crikey, and someone thought NZ licencing laws were draconian. I can't imagine we'd put up with having our cars seized and crushed.

http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BB13B7E5-73ED-4BC5-9E48-593F73FE9A3C/0/PressReleaseNewForcesjoinPoliceHelpline23July07v4.doc

I suppose dead people make poor lobbyists.

That's weird. Surely that's a statistical correlation between lack of insurance and drunk driving or accidents, not a causal one?

And if only 40% of non-insured cars get crushed, what are the criteria for deciding?

Maybe the 40% figure arises because only some Police Forces are implementing the scheme at the moment. The 78,000 figure appears to be a nationwide one. After this month, when every Police Force joins in, we might see the figures change.

>That's weird. Surely that's a statistical correlation between lack of insurance and drunk driving or accidents, not a causal one?<



It's illustrating the point I made earlier. Many of the people who don't have insurance or road tax may indeed be poor (but then in my experience the highest costs in running a car are petrol, maintenance and buying the damn thing in the first place - so if you can't afford the insurance...), but many are also the criminal element frankly.

Are you seriously suggesting that
"Uninsured drivers are 10 times more likely to have a drink driving conviction, 6 times more likely to be driving an unsafe vehicle and 4 times more like to have a driving without due care and attention conviction."
Is pure coincidence?

No, I don't think it's coincidence, and that's not what I said in my post. I said that the correlation is statistical not causative. Not having insurance doesn't cause one to drink and drive, therefore you can't treat everyone who doesn't have insurance as a criminal beyond the lack of insurance charge.

Which is why a law saying that having no insurance means you can have you car crushed is draconian because it makes not differentiation between the people who have no insurance because they are poor and the people who have no insurance and commit other crimes.

I've had this argument with people on h2 before - sometimes I drive my car without a warrant of fitness or registration for a period of time because either I don't have the money or I'm too ill to get them done, or, usually, both. People here have reacted as if this some how makes me a criminal (it doesn't) and/or a dangerous driver (it doesn't, I am a very careful driver).

The only way you can make any meaningful connection between lack of insurance and criminality, beyond a statistical correlation, is if you look at each individual case. Which is what I hope the car crushing law in fact does do - takes into consideration the context.


>>but then in my experience the highest costs in running a car are petrol, maintenance and buying the damn thing in the first place - so if you can't afford the insurance...)<<

You don't appear to know much about the reality of being poor. Once you have paid for the car and petrol you can choose to buy insurance or food not both. And the option of not having a car at all can make an already hard life incredibly difficult. Of course there are some poor people who can't afford a car at all, but of those that can I understand why some don't have insurance (even though I disagree with them).

I think that depends rather on what country you are living in. In the UK you can live quite happily without a car. My partner has never had one, doesn't want one and has had some very hard time in the past.
I recognies that in larger countries such as the USA or I guess New Zealand with larger distances to things, having a car can be more of a necessity.

I am afraid I am fully in favour of the car crushing rule in the UK. There just isn't any excuse here.
(Maybe in outlying regions such as the higlands and islands I guess it can be a little more relaxed as they're not exactly crime nor traffic hotspots)

Right, so you know about the differing circumstances about all areas of the UK and everyone's needs, even those people that have quite different lives to yours?

So everyone in rural areas has access to adequate public transport, including people who have disabilities, or young kids, or work night shifts?


>>
(Maybe in outlying regions such as the higlands and islands I guess it can be a little more relaxed as they're not exactly crime nor traffic hotspots)
<<

I'm sure both the police and the public will be pleased to hear that the Highland Scots can have their own laws, or at least adjust English laws to suit themselves at, presumably, the discretion of the police.

We didn't have our own laws exactly

On Arran we had 2 cops for most of the year. Only 1 was on duty at a time. On a Sunday evening, the locals in the South of the Island knew they could do as they pleased because Jim (50% of the Arran Police) always made sure he was on duty with the Police Landrover so he could attend the Catacol pub quiz, of which he was an avid fan.