Banning young people from driving at night?

[Iain.Faulkner]

Again, trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. Are you genuinely trying to claim that someone running over a cyclist, whatever the state of the cyclist, is not the driver's fault? Would you say the same about a drunken pedestrian who's fallen into the road? Or a pedestrian who steps/staggers out unexpectedly causing a car to swerve? If you're not able to be aware of and apprehend the dangers of the unexpected, you shouldn't be driving a lethal weapon at all.

 

I've been hit by a car/been runover when I was a cyclist....it was my fault, the police and the insurance company said so as did the cycling profficiency officer who was driving behind the guy who ran me over (unbelievable I know!) and If I'm truly honest, they were all correct in what they said. It was my fault, there was nothing the driver could have done.

 

I have to agree with Hightower on this, cyclists can cause accidents as well, it's not just bad drivers or drunk drivers which cause accidents.

 

Is it also not illegal to be drunk in charge of a bike?

[Robz]

So your are claiming that a drunk driver in charge of a multi-tonne vehicle capable of travelling at incredible speeds and killing people, is more dangerous than a cyclist in charge of one very light vehicle capable of travelling at the same speed as a very fast sprinter?

 

I agree with you on the traffic lights, bikes on the road are a vehicle and have a legal duty to obey the laws of the road.

 

As to cycle tracks, you may not understand how dangerous a supposedly 'safe' cycle path is. Debris, dirt, bad surfacing, all can be much more dangerous than drivers are aware of. A cyclist actually has a legal right to cycle on the road, and the highway code encourages use of cycle paths where the cyclist considers them 'safe'.

 

Of course, I have seen plenty of cars jumping traffic lights, and blindly cutting me up at juctions and roundabouts, among many other offenses. I've experienced these both when driving and when cycling, as well as cars which jump pedestrian crossings while I was walking. I find it very hard to believe any claim that a cyclist is more dangerous than these morons.

 

Both are as dangerous as each other, either one can kill a person regardless of who is driving/riding the vehicle. cycling should not be seen as the safer alternative. Modern vehicles have airbags, crumple zones and softer materials outside and in (obv not airbags outside bt thts an idea) to help preserve the life of the person they hit and the person inside. Bikes however are of solid consrtuction and an accident can not only kill the "victim" but also the cyclist.

[jamesb]

Those really are extreme views IMO. I haven't got the attitude that cyclists are an inconvenience to drivers. I have the attitude that roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles, and special bike roads (cycle lanes I think you call them) should be provided for cyclists. Your post comes across as though drivers are to blame for all accidents, which I think is completely stupid.

 

So they're not an inconvenience to drivers, they just don't belong on the roads that they have a legal right to be on and should be relegated to cycle paths when the local council can be bothered to build them? Otherwise, obviously, they should simply be unable to travel. If a pedestrian walks into someone, it is very, very unlikely someone dies. If a cyclist runs into someone, it is very unlikely someone dies. If a car drives into someone it is fairly likely that someone dies.

 

As for drivers being at fault - a study in New York revealed that drivers are at fault in around 90% of all pedestrian and cyclist deaths in collisions. I don't think it's unreasonable to then blame drivers for the majority of accidents.

 

As for walking home drunk - it can be dangerous, but in most areas now there are special bridleways (called paths I think) that allow the user a safer journey home. Cyclists can't use paths, and must use the road when special bike roads don't exist - are you seriously saying that if a drunk rider fell or swerved on a road (primarily for cars) and got knocked over it would be the drivers fault?!

 

Hmm. So a driver who is following someone travelling slowly, too closely to stop, or passing at an unsafe distance, is not to blame should the worse happen and their lack of awareness of required safety margins cause a collision? If someone's tailgating you, obviously it's your fault if you have to do an emergency stop and they read-end you. Useful to know. I've never actually rear-ended a car while driving or cycling, but if I do I'll make sure to try and use that as a defense.

 

Lethal weapon, you kill me, my car has never, repeat never killed anyone or anything larger than a fly. So not a lethal weapon. With you probable arguement you bike is a lethal weapon having used poisonous materials to manufacture, machinery capable of killing...... etc. etc.

 

A car is a potentially lethal weapon capable of killing people if not properly controlled. Thinking otherwise is foolish.

 

Be sensible. Am i supposed to never drive past a person on a bike in case he suddenly fall off or swerve, same with a walking drunk? Wake up, cyclists have

as much responsibility to drive/ride sober and sensibly as the rest of us. You will also find that people are capable of being and have been killed by bicycles.

 

Yes, they are. People are capable of, and have been, killed by baths as well. It's about risk assessment. The rate of pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists is around one every two years. If you can get the deaths caused by cars down to that sort of level, then you can start throwing stones.

 

And yes, cyclicsts do have as much responsibility to ride in a sensible and controlled manner as everyone else, but there is a natural safety limit built in on a bike which doesn't exist on a car. On a bike, you have to balance. One of the first things to go when drunk is balance. If you cannot balance on your bike, you will fall off and injure only yourself. If you cannot balance in your car you will still be able to drive.

 

Yes, yes you are!

 

Would it be better if I added the term 'in comparison' to the end of my statement?

[witch]

BTW - mouthwash or cough medicine will only affect a reading if you have taken it less than 15 minutes before being breathalized. Anyway, many countries have zero tolerance to drinking and driving, but their jails arent full of people with bad coughs and bad breath so somehow they cope with this issue!

As for bikes being as bad as cars - that's just not possible given the size and speed of a car versus that of a bike. Yes, there are some very bad accidents caused by bikes but when you compare them with cars..

A car IS a lethal weapon - just because you don't fire a gun doesnt stop it being a lethal weapon, does it?

[Andrew_C]

To get (vaguely) back on topic; do you know what the biggest single killer of 17-20 year old girls is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their boy-friends driving. I think I read that one in New Scientist within the last month.

[localzuk]

No, not really.

 

If you're driving you are in charge of a tonne or more of metal propelled by powerful internal explosions at speeds of up to 120 m.p.h along roads. At even at a much lower speed the effects of an impact will not only likely kill you, but anyone else involved, or cause severe injury and damage.

 

If you're cycling you're in charge of a few kilos of metal (at most) propelled by your own leg power at speeds of up to 20 m.p.h (if you're a very fit cyclist, more likely around 12 m.p.h). If you fall off you will most likely end up with a few grazes and bruises unless you are exceptionally unlucky. You will also find that if you are too drunk to control the bike properly, you will simply fall off as cycling requires much greater balance, alertness and concentration than driving. Someone too drunk to stand can climb into a car, start the engine and slam their foot onto the accelerator - try that on a bike and you'll end up lying on the floor, giggling.

 

More importantly even at top speed on a bike you are likely to injure only yourself, and then not severely. If by some miracle you manage to hit a pedestrian (very difficult, the bar stewards dodge like you wouldn't believe possible) then you're still likely to cause only a bruise.

 

So no, it's no more dangerous than walking home drunk - which is an option with a bike, since you can walk it home and lean on it for support.

 

See, this is a view of cycling that is so wrong it annoys me. Cyclists use the roads, not pavements. Therefore, they are surrounded by other people not expecting for drunk cyclists to go weaving out in front of them. A bike is a lot more difficult to control than your own legs when drunk.

 

If that person does hit someone when cycling, the person they have hit can be seriously injured. There have been multiple fatalities from people being hit by cyclists - lots more small tubey bits to smack into skulls etc...

 

On the original topic - it is a stupid idea. It would be penalising the masses for the stupidity of the minority. Not to mention, how do these drivers get night-time driving experience if they can't drive at night?

 

No, restricting engine size, restricting the carrying of passengers and similar restrictions would be more suitable. It is shown time and time again that a good number of teens, when they learn to drive, show off to other teens. Stop them from carrying other teens and it will eliminate that.

Edited September 21, 2010 by localzuk

[jamesb]

I've been hit by a car/been runover when I was a cyclist....it was my fault, the police and the insurance company said so as did the cycling profficiency officer who was driving behind the guy who ran me over (unbelievable I know!) and If I'm truly honest, they were all correct in what they said. It was my fault, there was nothing the driver could have done.

 

I have to agree with Hightower on this, cyclists can cause accidents as well, it's not just bad drivers or drunk drivers which cause accidents.

 

Is it also not illegal to be drunk in charge of a bike?

 

It is illegal to cycle dangerously, yep. I'm not advocating cycling drunk, just suggesting that if you're popping out for a quick drink it's better to take the bike than the car. If nothing else because you can leave the bike locked up more easily than leaving the car parked where you may get a fine or towed. Or you can walk home with the bike. Or walk the dangerous bits, and cycle the rest. Your options are massively expanded over those available with a car, and the incentive to take the risk is much lower.

 

Both are as dangerous as each other, either one can kill a person regardless of who is driving/riding the vehicle. cycling should not be seen as the safer alternative. Modern vehicles have airbags, crumple zones and softer materials outside and in (obv not airbags outside bt thts an idea) to help preserve the life of the person they hit and the person inside. Bikes however are of solid consrtuction and an accident can not only kill the "victim" but also the cyclist.

 

What the? Sorry, but cycling is by far the safer alternative and claiming otherwise is complete nonsense. You can say all you want about safety measures, but they all protect the driver and provide only minimal protection to the victim. You can claim that bikes are of solid construction, which is partly true, but they are also only a few kilograms in weight compared to several tonnes, have a stopping distance which is less than the length of a car, travel at a much slower rate, and have a much lower impact area to actually hit someone with.

 

Airbags outside the car would not help a victim in the slightest, since they are impact triggered. In fact they would worsen the impact rather than help.

[Rydra]

I may be one of the rareties, but I passed my test first time, and I've been driving since i was 18/19 ish. I've been hit once, and crashed my car once due to a blowout. I'm now 26.

 

I spent most of my younger life driving all over the place; i used to work night shifts finishing at around midnight, and i've gone to/from events and places at various times of the morning and night. When I wasn't driving, one of the rest of the mates drove. I have never driven with more than one drink in me, and that will only be with a meal, and when i know I won't be driving for 1-2 hours after, so well within the limits.

I don't and never did get into the boy racing idiocy.

And I've been a scout leader since i was 18, and have been out at all hours of the day/night over the years for events with this.

 

It is better to penalise people who behave like an idiot with a car, then to penalise everyone just because they are the same age/race/gender. If someone rolls a Vauxhall Nova at 2am while drunk into a bush, damned well charge them/fine them/penalise them for it. In no other part of the law, do you see someone do something stupid, and everyone else get the blame for it. If one of you shot someone, should I be arrested and fined in case i feel the need to do so?

 

What next, if all people under 25 have a curfew, there will be less crime/stabbings/drunk+disorderly? How about we just lock up everyone between 18 and 25 and save ourselves the trouble.

[jamesb]

See, this is a view of cycling that is so wrong it annoys me. Cyclists use the roads, not pavements. Therefore, they are surrounded by other people not expecting for drunk cyclists to go weaving out in front of them. A bike is a lot more difficult to control than your own legs when drunk.

 

Which is why a drunk person will, generally, get off the bike and walk. Too hard to control, too likely to fall off, don't take the risk. Or take the bus, or call a taxi and put the bike in the back. More options if you've got on a bike and realised you're unsafe than once you've got in a car.

 

If that person does hit someone when cycling, the person they have hit can be seriously injured. There have been multiple fatalities from people being hit by cyclists - lots more small tubey bits to smack into skulls etc...

 

This is laughable. Yes, there have been multiple fatalities in cyclist/pedestrian collisions (though generally the worst consequences tend to be for the cyclist). There are about one every two years. How many car/pedestrian collisions with fatal consequences happen in that same period of time?

 

On the original topic - it is a stupid idea. It would be penalising the masses for the stupidity of the minority. Not to mention, how do these drivers get night-time driving experience if they can't drive at night?

 

Agreed.

 

No, restricting engine size, restricting the carrying of passengers and similar restrictions would be more suitable. It is shown time and time again that a good number of teens, when they learn to drive, show off to other teens. Stop them from carrying other teens and it will eliminate that.

 

Yep, sensible suggestions which I'm fully in favour of.

[jamesb]

It is better to penalise people who behave like an idiot with a car, then to penalise everyone just because they are the same age/race/gender. If someone rolls a Vauxhall Nova at 2am while drunk into a bush, damned well charge them/fine them/penalise them for it. In no other part of the law, do you see someone do something stupid, and everyone else get the blame for it. If one of you shot someone, should I be arrested and fined in case i feel the need to do so?

 

The point of the suggestion isn't really arresting and fining everyone because one person shot someone, it'd be more in line with instating gun control. Not that I agree with the idea of banning night driving for anyone (except bad drivers, who shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway), but your example didn't really represent the proposal.

[Hightower]

A car IS a lethal weapon - just because you don't fire a gun doesnt stop it being a lethal weapon, does it?

 

Yes, my uzi is a VERY lethal weapon. But I dare say if you aimed your bow and arrow at my head it could be just as dangerous!

 

So they're not an inconvenience to drivers, they just don't belong on the roads that they have a legal right to be on and should be relegated to cycle paths when the local council can be bothered to build them? Otherwise, obviously, they should simply be unable to travel.

 

You are taking my words completely out of context, and twisting them to tell a different story. I haven't said that bikes shouldn't be on our roads. What I HAVE said is roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles and therefore cycle lanes should be created for cyclists.

 

Hmm. So a driver who is following someone travelling slowly, too closely to stop, or passing at an unsafe distance, is not to blame should the worse happen and their lack of awareness of required safety margins cause a collision? If someone's tailgating you, obviously it's your fault if you have to do an emergency stop and they read-end you. Useful to know. I've never actually rear-ended a car while driving or cycling, but if I do I'll make sure to try and use that as a defense.

 

Whoa - those are very specific examples. Seemed to me you were saying something along the lines of 'all drivers are to blame for all accidents', where as now all you give me is very specific examples where a driver would indeed be to blame.

 

 

Yes, they are. People are capable of, and have been, killed by baths as well. It's about risk assessment.

 

All about risk assessment, yet you started by condoning the use of a cycle when drunk. Seems backwards to me - a bit like "here's your safety rope, attach it around your neck and it will stop you from falling"

 

And yes, cyclicsts do have as much responsibility to ride in a sensible and controlled manner as everyone else, but there is a natural safety limit built in on a bike which doesn't exist on a car. On a bike, you have to balance. One of the first things to go when drunk is balance. If you cannot balance on your bike, you will fall off and injure only yourself. If you cannot balance in your car you will still be able to drive.

 

Yes, if you are extremely drunk I guess you'd fall off before anything serious happened. But if you were mildly drunk and could 'half' balance then you'd be on your way, zig zagging across the road. Never mind though - it'll be the drivers fault whatever happens.

 

Would it be better if I added the term 'in comparison' to the end of my statement?

 

It would actually be better if you used reasoning in your argument.

[localzuk]

provide only minimal protection to the victim. You can claim that bikes are of solid construction, which is partly true, but they are also only a few kilograms in weight compared to several tonnes, have a stopping distance which is less than the length of a car, travel at a much slower rate, and have a much lower impact area to actually hit someone with.

 

See, this is again showing that you don't really know what you're talking about I'm afraid. Modern cars have huge design features aimed at protecting the 'victim' - things such as plastic bumpers, the slope of the front of the car, the distance between the windscreen and bumper etc... these are all designed to prevent injury to a person being hit by a car.

 

A bicycle, however a person and a bike (which could weigh a total of, what, 70kg) travelling at 12mph is quite a lump of force. Think of it this way - that could end up around 500N of force being applied onto a small area of the person being hit (about 400N for the bike, about 100N for the person walking I'm estimating). Imagine they get hit by a handlebar. That is a large force in a very small area.) Consider the sharp bits, tubes etc... and you have a very dangerous lump of metal coming your way.

Edited September 21, 2010 by localzuk

[Rydra]

Think of a bike as a type of machinery, and only operate it accordingly to that. Don't do it drunk, tired, or while trying to do something else like eat, use a computer, or smoke.

[jamesb]

Yes, my uzi is a VERY lethal weapon. But I dare say if you aimed your bow and arrow at my head it could be just as dangerous!

 

I've not got a bow and arrow. I've got a BB gun. It could kill you, but it'd be a lot harder and much less likely than if you hold down the trigger on your uzi.

 

You are taking my words completely out of context, and twisting them to tell a different story. I haven't said that bikes shouldn't be on our roads. What I HAVE said is roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles and therefore cycle lanes should be created for cyclists.

 

So roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles, which you don't think includes bikes, but bikes should be allowed on our roads all the same?

 

I'm sorry, but the roads are designed for vehicles. Motorways are designed for fast travelling vehicles (hence why they don't allow pedestrians, cyclists, horses and the like on them).

 

Whoa - those are very specific examples. Seemed to me you were saying something along the lines of 'all drivers are to blame for all accidents', where as now all you give me is very specific examples where a driver would indeed be to blame.

 

Nope. I've given you general examples - hazard awareness is part of the driving test, meaning that drivers should be aware of hazards. If you're driving past a school and a child darts out from out of sight, behind a car, is it the child's fault if you run into them because you weren't anticipating the hazard?

 

All about risk assessment, yet you started by condoning the use of a cycle when drunk. Seems backwards to me - a bit like "here's your safety rope, attach it around your neck and it will stop you from falling"

 

No, I started by condoning not driving when drunk. I realise that I didn't fully explain why a bicycle is better (the extra options it allows to those with poor judgment, who might be tempted to drive home to avoid a ticket/towed car/give their friends a lift), which was my mistake.

 

Yes, if you are extremely drunk I guess you'd fall off before anything serious happened. But if you were mildly drunk and could 'half' balance then you'd be on your way, zig zagging across the road. Never mind though - it'll be the drivers fault whatever happens.

 

Half-balancing doesn't really work for long. You balance, or you don't.

 

It would actually be better if you used reasoning in your argument.

 

I am using reasoning I'm afraid. Yes, I do apologise for not more clearly explaining my original position, but there ya go. I believe I have explained better now, if not, please let me know.

[jamesb]

See, this is again showing that you don't really know what you're talking about I'm afraid. Modern cars have huge design features aimed at protecting the 'victim' - things such as plastic bumpers, the slope of the front of the car, the distance between the windscreen and bumper etc... these are all designed to prevent injury to a person being hit by a car.

 

Yes, they are. And very effective they are too. Why, there must have been no deaths due to cars for years with all of those features built in!

 

At 40 m.p.h you're more likely to kill a pedestrian than not in a car, regardless of safety features.

 

A bicycle, however a person and a bike (which could weigh a total of, what, 70kg) travelling at 12mph is quite a lump of force. Think of it this way - that could end up around 500N of force being applied onto a small area of the person being hit (about 400N for the bike, about 100N for the person walking I'm estimating). Imagine they get hit by a handlebar. That is a large force in a very small area.) Consider the sharp bits, tubes etc... and you have a very dangerous lump of metal coming your way.

 

Except that you are missing out on rather a lot there. The handlebar would not hit with the full force of the bike's mass and motion - it would hit with the force of the handlebar, stem, fork and wheel, as it is a separately mobile component of the bike. A car can be simplified as a solid mass in a collision, a bike can't. Even in a head-on collision you're pretty much looking at the same effect as a rugby player running head-on, full-tilt into the pedestrian. Nasty, but hardly the type of nasty you're describing.

 

Think of a bike as a type of machinery, and only operate it accordingly to that. Don't do it drunk, tired, or while trying to do something else like eat, use a computer, or smoke.

 

Yup. Again, I agree. Except maybe on the tired bit, I find a quick circuit on the cycle path by the river wakes me up no end in the morning.

[creese]

Let's not be silly.

 

A car is NOT a lethal weapon. It is not a weapon. It could be used as such but it is not designed as such. Apply that nonsense logic to: a computer, drop[ed from the 6 floor would kill you. A mouse lead, a fantastic Garrote. A pen as good as Stilletto.

[Hightower]

@JamesB: We're just going round in circles now, and my break is over, so I'm going to bow out and let someone else pick up where I left off.

[jamesb]

Let's not be silly.

 

A car is NOT a lethal weapon. It is not a weapon. It could be used as such but it is not designed as such. Apply that nonsense logic to: a computer, drop[ed from the 6 floor would kill you. A mouse lead, a fantastic Garrote. A pen as good as Stilletto.

 

A kitchen knife?

 

A car can become a lethal weapon through lack of awareness, judgment, control, or even just poor conditions. It is very easy for a car to turn from a mode of transport into a deadly device. A mouse lead would take rather more effort.

[creese]

A kitchen knife?

 

A car can become a lethal weapon through lack of awareness, judgment, control, or even just poor conditions. It is very easy for a car to turn from a mode of transport into a deadly device. A mouse lead would take rather more effort.

 

Rubbish again. The car would only be a weapon if used to kill. (edit: or been designed to kill)

 

Surely you have access to a dictionary.

 

Tell you what, my mouse lead against you car. In the classroom on the 4th floor.

Edited September 21, 2010 by creese

[jamesb]

Rubbish again. The car would only be a weapon if used to kill.

 

Surely you have access to a dictionary.

 

Would you prefer the term lethal device?

 

They are used to kill. Rarely deliberately, but it does happen.

 

If a baseball bat is used to kill, it's a weapon. Does that mean it's no longer a weapon once the killing's done?

[creese]

Would you prefer the term lethal device?

 

They are used to kill. Rarely deliberately, but it does happen.

 

If a baseball bat is used to kill, it's a weapon. Does that mean it's no longer a weapon once the killing's done?

 

Take a look at what you wrote, please, the baseball bat once used is a weapon. in the rack with the other bats........ a baseball bat.

 

Of all the thousands of cars in the massive car park, awaiting delivery, near me. How many will be a weapon? maybe one, probably none.

 

Edit: Try POTENTIAL lethal device, POTENTIAL lethal weapon. Deisgned as transport.

[jamesb]

Take a look at what you wrote, please, the baseball bat once used is a weapon. in the rack with the other bats........ a baseball bat.

 

Of all the thousands of cars in the massive car park, awaiting delivery, near me. How many will be a weapon? maybe one, probably none.

 

Lethal device. Better?

[arwen]

As a 'young' driver I find this completely stupid. Although i do belive at least one manadtory 'night time' lesson while learning, it is completely different to driving during the day.

 

As for a limit on the engine size? Also daft imo. I first tried to learn in a 1.2 astra when i was 18 and i hated it. I felt it was sluggish to respond, under powered, and very frustrating when you press down on the accelerator and it take a good few seconds for it to kick in.

After that I got some lessons in a 2.2 turbo Accord and a 1.9 Ibiza. Much better response, and much more comfertable and so i felt more relaxed and confident in my driving. Just because a person prefers a bigger engine does not mean its all about the speed. There is a lot more to consider!

 

Everyone has to learn, and banning an age group from somthing is only going to make things worse.

 

Oh, and I also passed first time, had no crashes or accidents, and I drive at all times of the day, and in most condisions (snow included!) unless it is complelty dreadfull outside!

[creese]

Lethal device. Better?

 

Don't like cars do you?

 

Virtually anything couls be a Lethal Device or Leathal Weapon. But only with intent. How many drivers go to work or anywhere intending to kill?

[Rydra]

Dragging this back away from cyclist versus car, the main thing I have a problem with here, is using draconian curfews before fixing the issue.

The issue is a minority of young+new drivers see a car as an extension of their epeen, and use it accordingly. A curfew is, unfortunately unlikely to help this.

People who drink drive, speed, or do the various other stupid things like this are unlikely to pay attention to the time at which they do it. And for the police to enforce it will take much more effort and manpower, and though it may work in general, many more people will be put out and inconvenienced in the process.

 

At 26 and 7+ years of driving, how is a police officer going to know to pull me over to ask for my ID, unless I was doing something wrong in the first place? Unless they just start randomly pulling over anyone driving at 2am, and having been stopped like this a couple of times, at 1-2am around xmas, it is mostly an annoyance and inconvenience.

 

Improve the driving test which is woefully outdated. Too much emphasis on things like parallel parking, three point turns etc. while ignoring the more important things like how to drive on dual carriageways/motorways, nightime driving, hell i think there should a compulsory session on driving with passengers/full load of stuff, as a car handles VERY differently when you load up the rear, reducing traction, speed, and increasing distractions.

I wouldn't mind seeing a repeat test within a short period of time.

EG, pass the test, then 6 months later having to do another short test (preferably in own vehicle) to make sure you haven't ignored everything you did in learning, THEN getting full license? This could work nicely especially as the "Study" showed most have an accident in the first 6 months...

And bring in harsher penalties for those who break the law in regards to drink driving, dangerous driving, and speeding in

pedestrianised zones.