General Discussion on Current Situation 2/

[suey]

Has anyone considered how he managed to drive about 600 miles and didn't fill up with petrol?

Regarding testing of eyesight, many years ago I collected my first pair of varifocals.  I hadn't used glasses before and was very nervous of driving.  The glasses were obviously OK for driving but I wasn't.  I got my husband to drive me around some country lanes, housing estates and a dual carriageway so I could sit in the car and watch the road as a driver without actually driving.  He also took my out at night for the same reason.  I didn't drive until I was confident in my corrected vision.

Rishile

You would have saved a lot of time if you'd just done the one trip to Barnard Castle. 

Oooo goodie, I have new specs 🤓 does that mean I can nip 350 miles up the road to my daughter in Gloucestershire in order to test them out.  I’m not showing any symptoms though, unless you count lock down fever 

[Guy Etchells]

     As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness         

Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users. 

The highway code is not law it is guidance, but obviously if you are taking a test drive you drive cautiously. It is exactly the same as the police when they do high speed driving test drives on a regular basis to ensure their driving is up to standard.

As for your claim you are fit to drive or you are not that is simply not true, you can feel fit to drive before you get behind the wheel but, for example, as soon as the sun flashes through the trees as you drive you can realise that you could not drive like that for any length of time. Another example is as you are driving you could find that your concentration is not up to what is required to drive. You could think your observation is good but realise you have missed road signs etc. or you could quickly find your road positioning is not very good, all things easily tested on a test drive.

If you do not think that perhaps it might be a good idea to test yourself on the computer using one of the theory test apps to see just how good your driving is, the road test is an extension of this.
Cheers
Guy

[Maiden Stone]

"More or Less" (Wed.9 a.m., repeat Fri. 4.30 p.m.) 5 of 7 editions, Radio 4, included an interview with a behavioural scientist, recorded late last week, before DC furore. She said 3 things were key when authorities relied on widespread public compliance with restrictions. Trust and equal treatment were 2. I've forgotten the 3rd. Guy, did you record that programme? Then you can remind me what the 3rd thing was and I won't have to find it on BBC Sounds/ IPlayer. Anyway, all 3 key principles have been damaged by DC incident. That's what's important.
 The partial relaxation in England 3 weeks ago was also regarded as unfair by some members of the public e.g. a cleaner, cook or nanny could be in a person's house but not the householder's parent or daughter/son.
Other Covid related items on the programme were testing and the number of people arriving in Britain Jan.-March this year.
Of course, some people may consider the "More or Less" programme biased against the government because it's on BBC. If so, when it comes to testing numbers, it's equally biased against the Scottish Govt.  Welsh & N.I. people might like to complain too because their govts. weren't mentioned (again).

Another behavioural scientist, a member of one of the groups advising the govt. was raging earlier in the week.
Listening to "The News Quiz" . DC was 1st question. A panellist pointed out the implied insult to Mrs DC's driving ability and her husband's obvious reluctance to let her behind the wheel of his car for the return drive to London. If DC  had put that forward as explanation for the trip to Barnard Castle, his excuse might have appealed to some men.
 

[Rishile]

     As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness         

Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users. 

The highway code is not law it is guidance,

The bit about eye sight isn't guidance.  It is law. 

Rishile

[pharmaT]

     As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness         

Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users. 

The highway code is not law it is guidance,

The bit about eye sight isn't guidance.  It is law. 

Rishile

Driving while medically unfit invalidates your insurance.  Driving without insurance is most definitely a crime.  Even if it wasn't I really cannot understand how anyone could argue that it was responsible.

[groom]

The highway code is not law it is guidance,

"Certain rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and are identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'. ... Although failure to comply with the other rules would not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in court under the Road Traffic Act to establish liability.

[Greensleeves]

Having sat as a JP for many years, if anyone had appeared before my bench using Guy's ideas of what is legal and what is not,  we would have  given him very short shrift.  The laws about fitness to drive are unequivocal,  and not open to interpretation.  If your ability to drive is affected by feeling unwell, or if you suspect your eyesight does not meet the legal requirements, you must not drive.  If you disobey you are not only committing an offence, but you are also invalidating your insurance.  The chances are, if you did not receive immediate disqualification (which for these charges is discretionary)  you would certainly become a 'totter' through penalty points, and would lose your licence.   And if that doesn't worry you, the fact that your insurance premiums thereafter would be astronomical might give you pause for thought. Hopefully being made to take part in a National Driver Offender Retraining course would afford you the opportunity to read through the Highway Code and the various Road Traffic Acts and amend your ideas. 

There's also another charge of lack of consideration for other road users which most likely would be added to the list.   And if you had an accident and killed someone, you would also be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, if you admitted that you were unwell or thought your eyesight impaired.  But you wouldn't admit to that, would you?  You would keep quiet about the fact that you were not fit to be on the road.   I find it very worrying that people are happy to put the lives of others at risk.  I suppose it doesn't matter as long as any  potential victims are strangers.

[Llwyd]

This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?.
Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.
 
Anyway, here's something else for you to ponder on. Today First Minister Drakeford announced our new "freedom" in Wales, which I won't go into in detail because I think most of you are in England or Scotland. Now then, this advice included that we should stay "local" which, according to Drakeford, is around five miles. As I live less than five miles from my nearest border crossing into England, do you think I could drive across the border and then, because I would be in England, drive as far as I wished?. I don't want to go that far but just to our son's, some 15 mins into England.
Assume "social distancing" etc. would be observed.
By the way, I walked several miles further than five today but not into England. I stayed reasonably "local".
Cymru Am Byth.
 

Any replies which mention Cummings, or may be attributed to him in any way, shape or form, are not valid!.
 

[groom]

Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Probably because that claim was withdrawn and is fake news.