General Chat Thread, Bell Safedriver Scheme? in General; Just thought I'd update this thread... I've had the box for about 3 months and they've decided I'm an average ...
13th February 2013, 09:23 AM #16
- Rep Power
Just thought I'd update this thread... I've had the box for about 3 months and they've decided I'm an average to poor driver (I've been enjoying my new car a little too much)... I don't think I'll fall into either 20% so it hasn't really effected anything.
13th February 2013, 09:30 AM #17
Insurance companies increase your insurance premium for proving you are competent to drive (See significant rises for drivers once they pass their tests as they are 'on their own'). They can take a running leap with this idea as I don't trust what their idea of 'safe driver' will be.
If Carl's post is anything to go by, that's nothing short of frightening.
13th February 2013, 09:33 AM #18
- Rep Power
I think they increase your premiums after passing your test because your no longer required to be supervised by someone older and "more responsible", your also free to grab all your mates and run down to mcdonalds. So TBH I see why they increase premiums on new drivers.
Carls post is right about what it's reading but as I say as long as your not terrible then it's not going to shoot you in the foot.
13th February 2013, 09:49 AM #19
The thing is, the highway code basically teaches safe driving, a lot of people don't choose to follow that, things like Sharp breaking - I would wager if it wants to see how often you break sharply, i.e if your a tailgater and doing it regularly, not leaving enough room between you and the car in front of you, whereas it would expect a minimum amount of sharp breaking i.e. if someone pulls out in front of you sharpish or someone walks out into the road which are obviously unavoidable.
Originally Posted by CarlH82
I would wager most of them have minimum amounts where they consider normal on there, rather than one time over raise the insurance.
I am all for the drive over 100mph on a public road and get cancelled though, personally I would like capping it dependent on the road speeds also there as I don't know who thinks its a great thing doing 50 in a 30 and likewise.
I am all for reforming new driver stuff too in UK, i.e. no carrying passengers after you pass your test for a period
Last edited by rich_tech; 13th February 2013 at 09:51 AM.
13th February 2013, 09:55 AM #20
- Rep Power
It doesn't appear to have minimum amounts, for example a motorway drive you have to stick at 70mph which TBH I found dangerous. That said it's only if your in the bottom 20% of their drivers that you will see any effect on anything (they will charge you an extra fee 6months in).
I too am all for the new driver stuff, personally I think it should be more like the motorcycle licenses you start off with a small car and no passengers and then you 'upgrade' by doing another test after a year or so with that.
Last edited by mossj88; 13th February 2013 at 09:59 AM.
13th February 2013, 10:42 AM #21
Have they given you details on why they think that?
Originally Posted by mossj88
And, more importantly, will it make you change your current driving style?
13th February 2013, 10:47 AM #22
- Rep Power
I suspect it's because I do have a mild case of lead foot, when it comes to coming off the lights (drivers in Leicester typically drive up your backside so I prefer to have my own space). I also typically use my car to pick up my son at night which marks me down.
Originally Posted by Gibbo
13th February 2013, 12:24 PM #23
I don't get the argument that driving at 70 on the motorway is dangerous, i drive at 55-60 because that's how fast my van cruises at and i've never had an issue, also for tailgaters i completely ignore them, if you need to get past me go around, otherwise i don't care how close you get
Thanks to Pyroman from:
SteveT (13th February 2013)
13th February 2013, 12:33 PM #24
Surely this can come down to the type of car you drive too?
If you drive a 600bhp sports car with 800 ft/lb, slick tyres and carbon brakes EVERY turn, acceleration and stop would be a magnitude more "forceful" than a 1L 80bhp Polo.
Even a sporty diesel would have significantly more torque than a petrol and generate more G's for the accelerometer, wouldn't it?
13th February 2013, 12:46 PM #25
- Rep Power
Going over 70 literally saved my life on the bike when some twazzock doing 65 in the middle lane decided to overtake and came (and I mean this quite literally) half way into my lane while I was sitting next to him. If my bike were limited to 70mph regardless then I would be dead.
Originally Posted by Pyroman
Speed does not kill, speed has NEVER killed. Dangerous and irresponsible drivers (particularly those that don't know the limits of their vehicle and themselves) kill people.
Speed != dangerous driving.
I am looking at insuring a car this month once I (hopefully) pass my test, I have had bikes for over 2 years now, completely clean (touch wood) and it's going to cost me a bomb to get insurance. I've looked at these safe driver schemes and what not but at the end of the day it's not worth it for me...
13th February 2013, 12:46 PM #26
I think I understand, although it's difficult to explain.
Originally Posted by Pyroman
If you are driving at say 55-60 and being tailgated, it is more dangerous for you than doing 70 with following vehicles a good distance behind - there is a higher risk of a following driver misjudging and colliding with your rear-end. However, that danger is through no fault of your own, and you are not causing that danger by driving more slowly. I guess it depends on how you feel about being tailgated. Personally, I have experienced a rear-end collision, and as a consequence am uncomfortable with vehicles very close behind me, even though I know any resulting collision would be the other driver's fault. And I know that increasing your own speed is not the proper way to deal with it, but sometimes increasing the gap by speeding up just feels like the safest thing to do.
Back on topic, I'm not at all keen on the idea of my driving performance being judged by a 'blind' device analysing parameters without situational awareness. There are inevitably times when harsh braking, sharp cornering or (less so) fast acceleration have to occur because of the circumstances or the design of particular roads and a device that simply gives you a black mark because you exceeded an arbitrary parameter with no explanation for why seems unfair.
13th February 2013, 12:55 PM #27
When it comes down to Motorway driving, it all comes down to being sensible. Thats it. Its quite easy.
Left hand lane unless your overtaking (simple rule which many dont abide to) Many times and infact yesterday, a chap doing 60-65mpg in the overtaking lane (fast lane to some people) Nothing in front of him just tootlin' along oblivious to the people behind him. Same goes for middle lane hoggers! I can comfortably cruise at 70mph in the left hand lane and out to the middle or outter lane if needs be to overtake, then back to the left...Simple!
As for speed kills, Yes it does. If you hit something at 90mph instead of 70mph, there is a higher chance of you dieing because of the 20mph difference. Yes you can be responcible for your vehicle at 90mph but why take the chance of someone infront just slamming there brakes on, stick to the limit and keep your distance. Its easy!
Last edited by mmoseley; 13th February 2013 at 01:32 PM.
13th February 2013, 01:02 PM #28
- Rep Power
This could go back and forward over and over again, however in your example consider WHY you as the driver doing 90 would hit the guy in front. Because YOU didn't keep YOUR distance. Nothing to do with speed, if the distance is correct for the speed and conditions then a situation like that wouldn't even come up.
Originally Posted by mmoseley
The other scenario is a little kid running out in front of the car when you are doing 40 in a 30 zone in which case that speed (40) is inappropriate for the situation, you could even be doing a legal speed (30) outside a crowded school and kill someone. It's not the speed's fault it's the drivers fault for not considering the conditions and situation. At the correct speed most, if not all "accidents" would be avoided or mitigated to the point of no injury/damage. There is a time and a place for speed, an empty motorway in good conditions why not give it some and do 90 for a minute? It would make you a much safer driver in the long run than the person who never goes over 70 since you'll have that experience and you wont have the desire to keep doing it. I have done speeds that would get me a driving ban on the bike. Right or wrong, that's up to you. Will I do it again? No, why? Because I've done it and got the T-shirt! I now know what it feels like, how the bike moves and reacts, how *I* react so the next time I am doing 80 overtaking some twit in the middle lane I know how to handle the machine. Speed can get you into trouble just as easily as it can get you out of trouble!
I can see this thread devolving into something less constructive but let's see how it goes. As I said, *shrug* people have their own opinions.
Last edited by shadowx; 13th February 2013 at 01:11 PM.
13th February 2013, 02:48 PM #29
13th February 2013, 03:07 PM #30
I wonder what would happen if you put one in a paint shaker, they'd probably come to see you and figure out what happened.
By MuppetQueen in forum School ICT Policies
Last Post: 14th November 2006, 04:47 PM
By OverWorked in forum Recommended Suppliers
Last Post: 13th July 2006, 02:17 PM
By Kyle in forum Educational Software
Last Post: 10th March 2006, 09:30 AM
By ChrisH in forum Hardware
Last Post: 5th November 2005, 07:13 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)