I don't agree. It is said that you make your own luck, and I see this is true of most accidents. If you follow the Highway Code, you would be extremely unfortunate to be the cause of an accident. If everyone followed the Highway Code there would be hardly any accidents, and those that did occur, would be 'genuine' accidents.


Some reading for you: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org...policyBrief.pdf


Kids: Know your limits!

I can't find the research, but some years ago there was some carried out that showed how often when there was a police chase, police would disproportionately race to the scene as it was exciting. In my opinion, unless a serious crime has been commited, the police should not engage in high speed pursuits.

When I was 19, a friend of mine who is the son of a police sergeant and was studying American History at university had a friend who stole cars. It was a habit. My friend, after some drinks in town was persuaded to get in one of these stolen cars. They were chased by police and crashed and the car turned over. Fortunately, no one was killed.

Clearly some posters on this site feel the young lad deserved to die. That is shameful in any case, but supposing his car hit a family car head on and killed them also?

I would like to believe that some of the views expressed on this forum are for effect only.

Steady, no-one's said that. After reading the story which quite clearly makes it clear that nobody else was killed or injured, one can form the opinion that our roads are possibly a bit safer not having him around. Had others been involved I'm sure one's view about the event might change. (possibly not about him though)

I have a feeling that would encourage fast getaways & lead to further death.

If they are not being pursued, why rush?

Shall we say the expressive and colourful language adopted by some give exactly that impression. There was a locally famous case involving a young ambulance driver on an as it turned out false alarm who drove at speed through the traffic lights on A4 at Hambridge Road Junction early one Sunday morning. He killed a woman legitimately turning right at the green lights. Are our roads safer without her?

It turned out the ambulance driver was a young new employee, who hadn't had any specialist training. However, the Chief Ambulance Officer said we expect our drivers to 'be careful'. Actually, our roads would be a lot safer without senior officer attitudes like that.

When I was in New Zealand there was a national case going on concerning a doctor who was appealing a conviction for speeding on the grounds that he was (and could produce evidence) going to an emergency. The appeal court held that the speed restrictions were in place to protect life and it was wrong to put everyone else at risk, simply to save one.

The outcome of the Police Complaints enquiry will be interesting.

And put all those getaway drivers out of a job? I say, No fair.

I'm sure he should have done. Its a source of constant wonder to me that we don't stop parents smoking at home with their kids on the basis that it endangers both lives.

I have no idea what an 'OIC' is in Police establishment terms. I would expect a Sargent or an Inspector grade to be 'in charge' but they are operational managers. The Chief and Deputy Chief are senior officers.

I think it's daft how half of the time these chases are for minor drug possesion,(as in Cannibis) or panic reaction for being caught texting and driving or something.. Assuming the car was also registered in or around the Reading area, it would not have been hard to trace the car or it's owner/driver and the police would not have to have been in a chase..

I also agree that in some of the earlier posts the feeling I got from some of the posters were that it was just some Youth and felt it no great loss



The highway code has some good points and some bad points (or rather, points which need greatly updating).
Let's not forget it was not really changed or updated since 1960s.. IE stopping distances.. which are a joke.

Your whole argument is wide of the mark. I've read the document you linked to (attentively for once) and again I can't see anything in there that says that younger drivers are worse drivers. Only that statistically, they crash more. ANd how by enforcing one million hours of training and restricting people from driving alone would reduce risk of accidents in that age range.

And while I'm getting sick of repeating myself, as you seem to be unable to understand the crux of the point - that having an accident doesn't make you a bad driver - there is no statistic that says younger drivers are "worse" drivers. Only that they crash more which is not the ****ing equivalent of being a bad driver.

To be fair I probably have better car control than most people on here. Infact anyone on here as most of you lot drive Daewoos to and from the shop. (Forum trackday?) If I want I can make the rear of my car do some pretty interesting things and I know exactly how it will react in the wet and in the dry if I enter a corner at 50mph or 70mph, and if I trail brake into this corner what will happen.. Driving is a dance for which I know the routine very well - Does that make me a safer driver though? Perhaps not.

I have no shame in saying that I crashed within 6 months of passing my test. It was at about 20mph when I was very tired, heavily flu-d up. It was late one evening after doing a double shift at work, there had been an accident ahead, so the lane was blocked (it was a dual carriageway) and everyone was moving over at a crawling speed. I moved over in good time, a car infront of me then stopped to let a car join from the other lane. Unfortunately I just took my eyes off the road to look in my mirror for a split second but by then it was too late. A simple lack of reactions or just a split second of inattentiveness. Luckily there was very minor damage to the person's car who I hit.

That's not being a chauvinistic 19 year old, or showing off infront of my mates, or being distracted by the phat bass, I was driving alone at night with the music off. I was just another businessboy trying to get to bed. An unfortunate accident of which I was to blame. Now does having that accident in any way make my driving ability less? Or likewise, who is to say that if I had not have had an accident that day, that I would be a better driver than I am now? I argue having learnt from the mistake if you wish to call it that that I'm personally a better one now.

It was also a chance to get rid of the hideous car I owned at the time and move onto what has turned out to be a source of fun and friendship (my Dub) so in a way it was a good thing.

Again I will re-itterate, just because you have an accident does not make you a worse driver. It just means you have an accidents. I know people who are dreadful drivers as I have said, yet by nothing more than sheer luck, have not had an accident, and likewise there are people I know who are very safe drivers, that have had accidents (usually small, similar to the one I had).

The point is that there is a lot of dislike for the young motorist by the mainly middle aged demographic which I think is pretty evident on this forum, who hide behind statistics spouting off accident rates rather than accepting that there are some pretty **** good young drivers, and likewise there are some pretty **** terrible middle aged ones.



Sometimes that is correct. But sometimes things just happen. While we all mention luck realistically there is no such thing, just reality. I would rather drive upon what I see actually happening in the real world rather than what a book printed in the middle ages tells me.
Otherwise we would all end up driving with hand signals still...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAXNhye9NAQ&t=7m02s

They rush to cause the police to call off any chase.

Motormad - Does that make me a safer driver though? Perhaps not.

No - it puts you into the category -

I know people who are dreadful drivers as I have said, yet by nothing more than sheer luck, have not had an accident.

Yes, it is a shame that fact has to get in the way of fantasy; however, anecdotal examples prove nothing. Although I question your comprehension because I am sure that I have already said previously that I accept all groups have their bad drivers.


Sadly, my modestly skilled peer group just don't crash enough so we are not able to supplement the highly skilled young drivers that just keep bashing into things.

Good answer! I forget that you are not as daft as you post!

That may be so and some may agree.
However, rule 106 is still pertinent, as are all the others, and may be relevant here.
Whether it is outdated or not, if all drivers stuck to the rules within there would be markedly less death and injury on the roads.

That should say almost none.

Interesting. We expect motorists to read, understand and abide by the Highway Code. Some chance, they can't even read the signs prohibiting access to Parkway Bridge.

No-one's expecting it, we only speculate what it would be like if everyone drove sensibly.

Exactly!
Lost cause isn't it??
However, someone who fails to stop when instructed by the police knows exactly what they are doing!

Considering the original debate, sometimes the time taken to examine a scene is worthwhile:
deliberate crash

They can, they just chose to ignore them. Plus you couldn't see them at night because they weren't lit. And anyway there is no legal requirement to adhere to them, whereas there is with the Highway Code.