I don't like the idea of a retest, but I think after a certain age you should have to have regular medical tests, to make sure you can (for example) turn you head to look in your blind spot etc.

So if someone swerves to avoid hitting a pedestrian on the road and crashes into a car then they're at fault for swerving? If you see what I mean.

Middle lane hoggers are accidents waiting to happen if they're not doing an appropriate speed.


Agreed. I can only go by personal experience but I'm amazed that you can get cheaper car insurance as you get older.

You can't. Once you reach a certain age the premiums shoot up massively. My grandad was almost priced off the road when he was in his 80's. (He was perfectly able bodied by the way).
I understand why they do it though. Old people often cause crashes. They say young people have more, but that's only because there are a lot more young people on the road. Insurance companies know the risks of old people and charge accordingly.

That is something I didn't know. Perhaps I've just assumed the over 50 or 60 policies applied to all. I guess it makes sense that it would be for a limited period, I mean Insurance Companies wouldn't do anybody any favours would they.

Pardon me for saying but I've heard that crap excuse before, from people trying to defend their behaviour; not that I'm suggesting that's what you're doing Paul.

If the lane is packed with trucks, then of course you have no choice. The problem is most of the morons, expand on this to excuse themselves from driving in the left lane at all. "I can see a truck on the horizon, I may as well stay in the middle"

It's not a crap excuse when there's a lot of traffic. It is a crap excuse when there isn't. The problem is; where do you draw the line. Some people just take the piss though.

I agree, during rush hour you have no choice. Though I have been on the M23 late at night, and followed a car for several miles that was in the middle lane. There was no other traffic. That should get a life ban.

Um, I'm afraid I'm unclear as to what the issue was under those circumstances. If there was no other traffic and he was impeding you, why not just overtake him? If there was no other traffic and he wasn't impeding you, why is it a problem?

Jon

I did overtake. Though for two miles they drove in the middle lane when there was nothing to overtake. I was in the inside lane until I over took, and returned to the inside lane.

Are they like the same feckers who do 50 in a 60mph zone only to carry on doing 40-45 when they go through a 30mph zone?

Arses.

^^^That winds me up.

I used to have to drive through a NSL SC. It was preceded by a 40mph road and followed by a 30mph road. Amazed at the number of people who would stick at 40mph all the way through but flash me when I overtook them on the SC because they were going too slow. One of the girls I worked with had no idea what the NSL sign meant, nor what the NSL restrictions were!

The degree to which some people seem to have passed their driving test yet actually know feck all about the driving regulations is a constant source of worry when I'm behind the wheel.

Jon

Very, very agreed.

If the driving test was as stringent as a pilots licence, it would probably save 90% of the deaths on our roads. It would also eliminate our congestion problems because all the brainless phallus features would have to take the bus.

That really pisses me off. Especially on busy or bendy roads where you can't safely overtake.