|
At my last company the department I worked in had 2 apprentices seriously injured within a year whilst going to McDonalds at lunch. What could be done asked the MD, ban them from going to McDonalds, ban them from using their cars at lunch, ban them from driving to/from work. In truth nothing could be done, young lads, hotted up Saxo's and Corsa's are always going to crash at some point. Happened before I passed my test, happened since, will always happen.
It actually went really downhill in the weeks following the second accident. In his infinite wisdom the MD decided to discipline the director of the department they worked in, MD considered he had not instilled in the apprentices sufficient moral ethics. After a heated board meeting at which the director under threat had his legal people briefed outside the MD was forced to resign.
|
It is tragic indeed, Three young lives lost, but in Bath 4 people died when a 19 yr old dove a tipper down a steep hill 3 days after passing his hgv test. Lack of experience....
There but for the grace of God goes me 45 years ago. And yes I had a few as a young inexperienced driver.
|
It is tragic indeed, Three young lives lost, but in Bath 4 people died when a 19 yr old dove a tipper down a steep hill 3 days after passing his hgv test. Lack of experience.... There but for the grace of God goes me 45 years ago. And yes I had a few as a young inexperienced driver.
+1
|
|
|
|
Not quite right ORB, the young lorry driver in question was tested for the vehicle he was actually driving some time before (probably when he was 18 for Gods sake), the test you refer to was his pass of the artic test.
However, what a 19 year old is doing at the wheel of a fully loaded 8 wheel tipper i do not have answer for, and IMO its plain ridiculous, but what isn't being discussed anuwhere apart from lorry forums is the appalling lack of training in the actually driving control of lorries, and i'm not talking about passing tests here (the HGV test itself has been dumbed down over the years), i'm talking about trainees being taught to drive a lorry exactly as a car, brakes to slow gears to go which i can assure you after a lifetime in lorries has place no in lorry world, those trainees are being let down by the system and the general public haven't got a clue whats been going on over the years....you only have to spend an hour on the road to see the results for yourself.
Ironically years ago, when the HGV was a class 1 2 3 and the rare 4, the young man would have needed a class 2 to be driving a multi axled rigid, rightly so, class 3 (equivalent of C which now covers multi axle rigids) was for standard 4 wheel rigids, and his minumum age would have been a sensible 21, so usually at least 4 years of motoring under the belt.
In car crashes involving high speeds, our generation was lucky, our cars weren't festooned with electronics to keep them on the road, we soon found out just how low grip levels were in the real slippery damp world, if we lost it the speed involved often allowed some recovery, and luckily lots of us never forgot.
Edited by gordonbennet on 09/03/2015 at 16:02
|
Gordon, my point was lack of experience.. I worked for British Leyland truck sales and had an hgv licence. I have never driven a fully loaded artic, except once to move it off the motorway to a service area when the driver was taken ill. It was sufficient for me to know at24 that I did not have the skills, but I actually renewed it till cpd came in(don,t quite know why) . However I can understand your regular points about modern hgv drivers.
And the young man on the hill in Bath was on a very steep hill and if he started the descent in the wrong gear had no chance of stopping. And he should not even have been on that road... Weight limit..?
|
|
There are several posts discusiing the Bath incident on a lorry forum, most of which agree with GB that the current HGV test and training is not adequate.
It is also pointed out that weight/width limits may say "except for access", which in this case would have permitted this route to be used.
Until the investigation results are published we don't know if it was due to driver error, mechanical failure or other causes.
|
|
|
|
I agree with you entirely ORB, my point is that any new driver will have been taught that the brakes are all thats needed, no mention will have been made about brake fade under constant heavy use nor utilising gearing nor auxilliary braking to keep things cool and under control just in case, he will have been taught to use only the lorry brakes to slow down with...i'm quite serious here i am not exaggerating nor making this up.
Had he approached a hill in the appropriate gear and descended using maximum engine retarder braking in the lowest sensible gear and using minimum brakes thereby keeping them as cool as possible in case of a problem, then he will only have learned to do so by himself with experience (19? i doubt it) or from an old hand...the type who wouldn't pass the current HGV test again to save his life cos after a lifetime of driving lorries properly its almost impossible to do so incompetently so wouldn't be a suitable trainer in this topsy turvey country.
This standard has become the norm, even some company drving assessors insist upon brakes to slow gears to go...though to be fair some company trainers are old school themselves and no mention in the derogatroy has ever been made about my progress via minimal use of the brakes but maximum use of the various auxiliary braking systems the makers still insist (don't they know about brakes to slow etc:-) on fitting, despite them not being needed apparently.
The whole driver training system needs shaking up for all classes of vehicle, with a return to the emphasis on driving skills and vehicle control again, with some massive injections of common sense to differentiate between the vehicle types and the skills required to control them during training including cars...we won't see this of course because the eventual goal is the removal of the driver from the vehicle, hence each new generation of vehicle gains further automation (scary stuff now in lorry world, not impressed)...best of luck to those still on the road when this eventually happens, blowed if i want to be anywhere near an unaccompanied 50 ton+ lorry (they will be by then) when one of the computers throws up error 404.
Edit..''Until the investigation results are published we don't know if it was due to driver error, mechanical failure or other causes.''
Agreed Galileo, but in the event of brake failure/overheating/fade the wise driver (or well trained) is already in the appropriate gear with brakes as cool as they can be...just in case.
Edited by gordonbennet on 09/03/2015 at 17:06
|
|
|
|
|
Young drivers at the wheel are statisically more dangerous that's why their insurance is through the roof. When out on a social jaunt with mates as in the case above, even more dangerous.
There is the two year probationary period after passing the test, but penalties only take place if the driver is caught breaking the law. This is where a compulsory black box could be used to monitor their driving all the time and any detected bad driving could be followed up with an automatic text, with a warning perhaps.
|
|
Ford has touched on this issue, with its programmable keys limiting 'second' drivers to fixed speed limits. An excellent first step in my view, although a young impressionable mind might still explore speed on a lower-limit, twisty roads.....
Ok, here's an idea. Dashcams. A new law where every driver under 25 is legally required to install and maintain a dashcam (which meets a minium standard of image and recording storage time).
In the event of a collision, or law-breaking situation, the footage must be provided to police/insurers for independent examination.
Failure to operate or provide dashcam footage results in a 12-month ban and hefty fine.
So young drivers are effectively being watched, with their own equipment, which they paid for. The expense to the public purse comes with police checking for the dashcam, and with processing footage in incidents.
I think the concept of this, in the social media age, might prove a credible deterrent.
Thoughts?
Edited by Sulphur Man on 09/03/2015 at 17:00
|
|
Quite a few commercial operators have tracking systems installed. So the technology is already available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Reckless' is the operative word, the age and gender of the drivers less so.
My wife escaped serious injury a couple of years ago after being hit by a BMW X5 driven by woman in her late 50s, who was more than 4 times the alcohol limit at 5pm.
There are always reckless fools behind the wheels of vehicles.
It is reported that the driver in this case was 17 and passed his test 3 days ago. Also apparently 'in convoy' with several other vehicles.
One wonders how he managed to buy and insure a Golf, with that age and experience?
|
|
It is reported that the driver in this case was 17 and passed his test 3 days ago. Also apparently 'in convoy' with several other vehicles.
One wonders how he managed to buy and insure a Golf, with that age and experience?
|
|
Nobody has actually checked my licence when buying a car. It wasn,t even asked for for a test drive, although they did ask for ID for the payment as it was over £5000 in cash. Debit card too.
Edited by oldroverboy. on 09/03/2015 at 17:23
|
|
|
|
|
Reckless driving is not restricted to teenagers, it effects all age groups. Of course backroomers are all paragons of virtue when it comes to driving....
A report published last year reviewed all road accident fatalities recorded in Britain between 1989 and 2009. It concluded that the risk of fatality was higher for older adults aged over 70 than younger ones.
|
A report published last year reviewed all road accident fatalities recorded in Britain between 1989 and 2009. It concluded that the risk of fatality was higher for older adults aged over 70 than younger ones.
Those stats presumably include drivers killed by other drivers, not just themselves? Perhaps the oldies are slower in taking evasive action? And I guess insurance premiums are still a good guide to who the riskiest drivers are?
|
|
Report looked at drivers AND passengers AND pedestrians. Not surprisingly, older people are more vulnerable. Conclusion: "Previous emphasis on driver impairment in older age has unduly focussed attention on elderly drivers, who represent a minority of all driver fatalities. Older adults represent a much larger proportion of passenger and pedestrian fatalities. Additional policy schemes and initiatives should be targeted at safeguarding older adult passengers and making the road environment safer for elderly pedestrians."
|
|
|
|
Reckless driving is not restricted to teenagers, it effects all age groups. Of course backroomers are all paragons of virtue when it comes to driving....
A report published last year reviewed all road accident fatalities recorded in Britain between 1989 and 2009. It concluded that the risk of fatality was higher for older adults aged over 70 than younger ones.
No one here has said otherwise but it's more predominant in young inexperienced drivers. Why do you think their insurance is so steep?
|
|
No set of words fills me with more dread than 'something must be done.' Very dangerous.
The odd tragic incident/sensationalist story proves or disproves very little. If the driver was 27 would you be getting out of your tree as much?
I'm sure I can find a similar story with a 27 year old driver if I google long enough.
|
Nobody is claiming backroomers are paragons,read my earlier post, when I learned to drive we had cars with drum brakes, no abs,no power steering and no seat belts. If you crashed you were usually injured at anything more than a very slow impact. And on crossply tyres with little grip .but now a 1 litre corsa will still do a ton.
Was I lucky, yes.
But I still have nightmares about the 6 yr old who ran out in front of me, and thankfully I was going slowly enough to almost stop, although he did have a scratch behind his ear and although it is 40 years ago I can still remember it.
I have lived in a few countries and this sort of accident happens everywhere, which does not help those left behind.
However if it helps us reflect and try to become a better driver, let us do just that.
In between times a thought and a prayer for the families.
|
|
|
|
No set of words fills me with more dread than 'something must be done.' Very dangerous.
Slavery, child labour, asbestos, workplace inequality. God how I miss these things..........
|
Slavery, child labour, asbestos, workplace inequality. God how I miss these things..........
I don't think anybody went on an internet forum declaring 'something must be done!' about slavery.
I'm talking about the ridiculous fox hunting ban. The unnecessary ban on handguns after Dunblane and the erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 with 'security precautions' which would've never stopped 9/11 anyway. All responses to minority howls of 'something must be done.'
Nowhere do you see this more than in transport policy. One child gets knocked down - they put a crossing in at that spot because the mother howled that 'something must be done.'
We've now got Police with the authority to temporarily remove citizens driving licences because one kid got mowed down by a pensioner - her mother went to the telly shouting that 'something must be done.'
Laws named after dead children are bad laws.
|
I don't think anybody went on an internet forum declaring 'something must be done!' about slavery.
No but it happened because people campaigned, petitioned and even went to war to prove it was wrong. I there'd been social media at time then it would have been at forefront, as were liberal newspapers etc then.
I'm talking about the ridiculous fox hunting ban. The unnecessary ban on handguns after Dunblane and the erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 with 'security precautions' which would've never stopped 9/11 anyway. All responses to minority howls of 'something must be done.'
Too many mixed up examples Jamie
Whatever the merits of the hunting ban nobody can say it was rushed, panicked or lacked democratic scrutiny. The issue is the massive opportunity cost of the time it took up in parliament. Dunblane followed Hungerford. It was about mass murder in US model, not a few people bitten by dogs. Action was inevitable, whether it could be fine tuned is another issue.
On 9/11 though you may be right.
Nowhere do you see this more than in transport policy. One child gets knocked down - they put a crossing in at that spot because the mother howled that 'something must be done.'
It usually needs more than one death even where danger is apparent to a blind man on a galloping horse.
We've now got Police with the authority to temporarily remove citizens driving licences because one kid got mowed down by a pensioner - her mother went to the telly shouting that 'something must be done.'
Blind or demented pensioners need their licences stopping forthwith. Too many examples where it should have happened but didn't. And not just involving children.
Laws named after dead children are bad laws.
Generally speaking, Yes.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 11/03/2015 at 19:43
|
|
The handgun ban was unnecessary. We've now gone to the extreme of forcing the Olympic shooting team to train in France while access to firearms in this country has never been easier - if you know the right people in the big cities.
Blind or demented pensioners need their licences stopping forthwith. Too many examples where it should have happened but didn't. And not just involving children.
Maybe, but I'm talking about the individual case the law was based on, whereby Police identified a dozey pensioner who later that day mowed down a schoolgirl.
There is no evidence that taking his licence away that day would've stopped him getting in the car and killing that girl. If he was so blind to his actions generally, he probably wouldn't have noticed his lack of licence (or would've forgotten, if he's demented) and driven anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
