Van drivers, did you know that......

[nilagin]

They may well have made a big thing in the news about it but by then we were living abroad, in Zambia, so your argument about that doesn't hold up. Came back here in the 1980s.

I've never been to America, but I'm aware that some states have a 55mph speed limit and was aware long before I had internet access.

It's common sense really. Everyone knows that rules/laws change over time and that you should make yourself aware of the changes.

But I'd imagine most new drivers, like myself, would be around 18 years old. Never heard of the saying,"I wish I knew then, what I know now"? There's only one way to make something blatantly obvious, that's make it blatantly obvious. One persons common sense is different to another persons common sense. That basically makes the term "common sense" redundant as there is no such thing, not all sense is common to everyone.:shrug:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I've never been to America, but I'm aware that some states have a 55mph speed limit and was aware long before I had internet access.

But I'd imagine most new drivers, like myself, would be around 18 years old. Never heard of the saying,"I wish I knew then, what I know now"? There's only one way to make something blatantly obvious, that's make it blatantly obvious. One persons common sense is different to another persons common sense. That basically makes the term "common sense" redundant as there is no such thing, not all sense is common to everyone.:shrug:

It is made blatantly obvious, you're told to read the Highway Code as part of learning to drive.

As for "common sense", there is only one kind....

 

[nilagin]

It is made blatantly obvious, you're told to read the Highway Code as part of learning to drive.

....

And after you've passed? Obviously not.

 

[Ploddles]

And after you've passed? Obviously not.

AND OBVIOUSLY after you have passed.

Some people just won't accept when they are in the wrong and go on repeating the same thing, I wasn't aware of it, who reads what is written on the piece of paper, etc etc.

Time to face reality, get up to date now and check every now and then if there has been any changers that affect you.

As for America, different states have different rules. If I was to drive out there I would make sure I knew the rules where I was driving. If I then went out there a couple of years later I would make sure I knew if they had changed. All common sense.

 

[nilagin]

AND OBVIOUSLY after you have passed.

Some people just won't accept when they are in the wrong and go on repeating the same thing.

You still don't get it do you? :bang: The DFT don't make it obvious after you've passed your test, they are the ones in the wrong.

I still stand by my statement that there is no such thing as common sense. Most people are born with certain senses, but we not all lucky enough to be born with them. Just as we do not all learn and percieve the same knowledge on which to make decisions. Why do you think the HSE have to spell things out to everyone, whilst to some it is obvious.

 

[Ploddles]

But they do make it obvious. They put it down in black and white (or whatever colour the piece of paper is nowadays) and make you sign it.

Following your logic, every time a new bit of legislation was passed they would have to write to everyone in the country (or even the world just in case they visit these lands) to let them know. Otherwise everyone would just say "I didn't know" and expect to be let off. "Sorry Officer, I didn't know I'm not allowed to sell crack cocaine, the government didn't write to me in person to let me know".

Why not just accept your mistake and get on with it?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

You still don't get it do you? :bang: The DFT don't make it obvious after you've passed your test, they are the ones in the wrong.

No, they're not, when you reach adulthood you need to start to take responsibility for your own actions. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle in a public road it is up to you, and no-one else, to ensure you are fully conversant with the appropriate rules and regulations.

I still stand by my statement that there is no such thing as common sense. Most people are born with certain senses, but we not all lucky enough to be born with them. Just as we do not all learn and percieve the same knowledge on which to make decisions. Why do you think the HSE have to spell things out to everyone, whilst to some it is obvious.

The kind of people who need to be told by the HSE not to stick their fingers in a live socket or that a cup of coffee is hot are the sorts that would have been removed from the gene pool by their own actions in days gone by........

 

[nilagin]

But they do make it obvious. They put it down in black and white (or whatever colour the piece of paper is nowadays) and make you sign it.

Following your logic, every time a new bit of legislation was passed they would have to write to everyone in the country (or even the world just in case they visit these lands) to let them know. Otherwise everyone would just say "I didn't know" and expect to be let off. "Sorry Officer, I didn't know I'm not allowed to sell crack cocaine, the government didn't write to me in person to let me know".Why not just accept your mistake and get on with it?

Perhaps that's because did a better job and they have managed to get that particular message across.

But they do make it obvious. They put it down in black and white (or whatever colour the piece of paper is nowadays) and make you sign it.

If it was that obvious, I would have seen it.

 

[nilagin]

No, they're not, when you reach adulthood you need to start to take responsibility for your own actions. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle in a public road it is up to you, and no-one else, to ensure you are fully conversant with the appropriate rules and regulations.

So why isn't it written at the end of the Highway Code, seems odd to leave out that bit.

The kind of people who need to be told by the HSE not to stick their fingers in a live socket or that a cup of coffee is hot are the sorts that would have been removed from the gene pool by their own actions in days gone by........

You'd hope, but they are still out there.

 

[Ploddles]

If it was that obvious, I would have seen it.

Yes it is that obvious. It's written down for you to see and you sign that you have seen it and are thus aware. Couldn't get more obvious.

If you have forgotten or didn't bother reading it that is purely your own fault.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

So why isn't it written at the end of the Highway Code, seems odd to leave out that bit.

It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference, you'd just say " You can't expect me to read the WHOLE thing"

 

[nilagin]

Yes it is that obvious. It's written down for you to see and you sign that you have seen it and are thus aware. Couldn't get more obvious.

Obviously it could be, as I'm not the only one who wasn't aware, and there will I dare say, continue to be, so they aren't getting their message across. Perhaps you could do a better job for them.

 

[nilagin]

It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference, you'd just say " You can't expect me to read the WHOLE thing"

Stick it on the back cover, I always read the synopsis to decide if it's worth reading.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Stick it on the back cover, I always read the synopsis to decide if it's worth reading.

'"How was I supposed to know, the back page was missing from my copy"

 

[nilagin]

'"How was I supposed to know, the back page was missing from my copy"

For the back page to be missing, it would have had to have been well read.:shrug:

 

[onomatopoeia]

Yes it is that obvious. It's written down for you to see and you sign that you have seen it and are thus aware. Couldn't get more obvious.

If you have forgotten or didn't bother reading it that is purely your own fault.

Whilst broadly in agreement that the responsibility is with the licence holder to be aware of the laws governing operation of a motor vehicle they intend to use, with the plethora of primary legislation being passed by government every year, never mind the enormous volume of statutory instruments which are not primary legislation, it is entirely possible that unless one spends one's life reading Hansard and the statutelaw website, or HMSO bookshops, one might not be aware of every legal obligation one is under.

The DVLA is in the fortunate position of having the address of every UK driving licence holder. There may be a few left with grandfather rights, but it can't be many. They could use this to communicate with licence holders when there are significant changes affecting them. A change in national speed limits for a vehicle in a class they are entitled to drive would be one such situation. If they were concerned about the cost of sending out letters, they could abolish SORN and use the stamps that they save from not sending out the SORN reminders and "your car is now SORNed" letters.

 

[Stratman]

You still don't get it do you? :bang: The DFT don't make it obvious after you've passed your test, they are the ones in the wrong.

The DFT don't need to make it obvious. You entered into a contract with them in which you undertook to make yourself responsible. How do you think we all know about that clause? We read the contract before signing it.

If you don't read contracts before signing them then you deserve everything that happens to you.

 

[nilagin]

The DFT don't need to make it obvious. You entered into a contract with them in which you undertook to make yourself responsible. How do you think we all know about that clause? We read the contract before signing it.

If you don't read contracts before signing them then you deserve everything that happens to you.

I never signed a contract. I signed a form.

 

[Ploddles]

I never signed a contract. I signed a form.

You know when someone is getting desperate not to be wrong when they try and try and make a distinction like this.

 

[Ploddles]

Whilst broadly in agreement that the responsibility is with the licence holder to be aware of the laws governing operation of a motor vehicle they intend to use, with the plethora of primary legislation being passed by government every year, never mind the enormous volume of statutory instruments which are not primary legislation, it is entirely possible that unless one spends one's life reading Hansard and the statutelaw website, or HMSO bookshops, one might not be aware of every legal obligation one is under.

The DVLA is in the fortunate position of having the address of every UK driving licence holder. There may be a few left with grandfather rights, but it can't be many. They could use this to communicate with licence holders when there are significant changes affecting them. A change in national speed limits for a vehicle in a class they are entitled to drive would be one such situation. If they were concerned about the cost of sending out letters, they could abolish SORN and use the stamps that they save from not sending out the SORN reminders and "your car is now SORNed" letters.

What about all those driving on International or EU Licenses? Do they suddenly become exempt from the rules because they weren't written to by the DVLA. Or what about those who have changed their address but not yet informed the DVLA. Or those that have emigrated and then returned, the list goes on and on.

If you drive a vehicle on the roads it is your responsibility to ensure you know the rules applicable at the time. No excuse.

 

[Richard King]

NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL

When I passed my bike test, the examiner (in a Volvo) wasn't local, I lost him (he sent me over a junction, and then got caught by the traffic lights, as I preceded through the one way system), found him some time afterwards.

After seeing me ride for a total of 4 mins, he passed me, saying nothing more than "I expect you want something a bit bigger" I signed nothing. Before I rode out on my test, he asked me a few questions about automated railway junctions.

When I took my car test, I was asked a series of questions, from cards - identify this sign etc. I then took my practical test, passed, and signed nothing.

I did a straw poll with the staff (all of which drive) in the office I visited today
"how fast can you drive a transit van down a unsigned country road?"

Result: 14 say 60, one said 70, and another 50

Age range 19 - 70

So from the "on the back of a matchbox" straw poll, 93% of drivers would be unwittingly breaking the law...

Ironically the one who said 50 also said, she was only guessing, as it must have not been 60 as I asked the question

So contract, or lack of contract aside - amongst 16 intelligent, sensible, ordinary people, almost all would be ignorant of the law.. and that speaks volumes

I have to also say... You are additionally required to drive at a speed that is safe for the vehical and the conditions, and having driven a lot of vans, trucks, cars and bikes (in many different countries, in all sorts of conditions, and on some excuses for roads), unless they are all heavily loaded, or the conditions are poor, all have felt safe at speeds over 50, 60, and 70.

I think the arbitrary speed limit is a blunt stick, and doesn't promote responsible driving... in essence, on some days you would be a bloody idiot to drive at 50 through a 60 limit. whereas on a clear fine day, on a good straight open road, driving at 50 through the 50 limit would seem painfully slow

 

[Richard King]

What about all those driving on International or EU Licenses? Do they suddenly become exempt from the rules because they weren't written to by the DVLA. Or what about those who have changed their address but not yet informed the DVLA. Or those that have emigrated and then returned, the list goes on and on.

If you drive a vehicle on the roads it is your responsibility to ensure you know the rules applicable at the time. No excuse.

I'm all in favour of continuing education, in fact, if we had to have a full eye test, fields test, drugs test and a quick written test and a 20 min road test every 5 years, and the requirement to do CET style tests once every few months, I would welcome it. However the approach we have in this country is that we pass once, and then we are magically supposed to know everything. At the point when we are shown not to know everything, the system then produces policemen with a condescending attitude.

If driving law was so very simple, policemen would not need to have training on it

 

[Stratman]

......

After seeing me ride for a total of 4 mins, he passed me, saying nothing more than "I expect you want something a bit bigger" I signed nothing..............
.
.
.

... I then took my practical test, passed, and signed nothing.............

You did when you applied for a full licence.

You do have a full licence, don't you?

 

[Richard King]

You did when you applied for a full licence.

You do have a full licence, don't you?

Yep

And TBH, 25 odd years ago, I signed for my first mortgage with an endowment policy, and do you know what, I cant remember who the endowment company company was, or even where I did the signing, or the amount of the policy

I don't recall signing anything before any of my road tests. I suppose I filled in an application form, I do remember taking a passport with me for ID to the tests

I do remember signing forms when I applied for a passport, but to be frank after 4 paqes of fine print, I could hazard a guess as to the details I wrote on it, or the content of the form. I don't even recall where I was living when I applied

I'm not forgetful, It is just that one tends to remember oddities, or stuff that you are told you need to remember

 

[Ploddles]

Yep

And TBH, 25 odd years ago, I signed for my first mortgage with an endowment policy, and do you know what, I cant remember who the endowment company company was, or even where I did the signing, or the amount of the policy

But you don't get penalty points and a fine for that and it's not breaking the law.

I'm not forgetful, It is just that one tends to remember oddities, or stuff that you are told you need to remember

When you took your test you agreed to keep up to date (whether you can recall signing the form or not) so you were told to remember.

 

[wack61]

I've read it about a dozen times trying to interpret the wording. As far as I can tell, I keep my existing BE entitlement unchanged except as noted below (and presumably my C1E and D1E entitlements that came with the licence when I got it too, since I'm an old fart and passed my test before 1997).

The only difference from the existing rules seems to be the new requirement to pass a C1E test to tow trailers weighing (it uses the word "weighing" rather than "plated") over 3500kg. My trailer is only plated to 2500kg, so I appear to be unaffected.

The page you linked to looks like it refers to people that took their test after 1997 , I'm hoping so as it does affect me as I tow a 3.5t trailer behind a 3.5t truck making a 7t train weight But I do have C1E on my licence

They don't make it clear though do they

 

[Splog]

I have a feeling the rules change between commercial and private use...... could be wrong though!

 

[faddius]

Dear god, no wonder some people's driving skills are dubious at best when they try to make excuses like some of the ones I've seen in this thread, especially with the "I cannot be to blame" attitude.

I'm all up for supporting darwins theory and whole heatedly encourage the self elimination of inherent stupidity from the gene pool, but in situations like driving on public roads - that stupidity and ignorance can get other people killed too through no fault of their own.

Luckily this thread is revolving around laws that are unlikely to directly affect the chances of someone getting harmed (vans are more than capable of driving at 70mph safely), but if you take this attitude with this example I dread to think how you view other driving laws and parts of the highway code.

Maybe you like to stop dead in the middle of an island because no one told you your exit was blocked? Maybe cross hatched boxes should apply to everyone but you? Dont want to inform the dvla about a medical condition, but its ok because they havent asked you? Or the personal favourite that I see loads of people do - making no effort to keep to your lane on an island, happily cutting across other lanes without a care in the world.

It is YOUR responsibility to keep up to date with changes in the law and highway code.

It is YOUR responsibility to ensure you know the limits and laws of the vehicle you are driving.

It is YOUR responsibility end of.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of bad drivers making excuses all the time. Your driving licence is a privilege not a right - don't abuse that privilege by not observing constantly changing laws and regulations and becoming blindingly ignorant and defensive when you're told it's your responsibility, no one else's.

If you don't know the laws such as speed limits for a vehicle you are about to drive - its 5 mins on google to find out! It doesn't take long, or take any real effort to keep up to date with major variations in the law such as speed limit adjustments.

Bring back the days where people took responsibility for their actions.

 

[Richard King]

Faddius

Of course you are right, but that doesn't change the results of my quick office straw poll. That in the main most are totally unaware of this rule.

We can have 5 soap operas a night, medical dramas, embarrassing bodies, police camera action, top gear etc.. we have an insatiable attitude for this crap.. but in reality, where many of these programs could keep us up to date with important things, as a society, we choose dross and drivel

If I speed, I am wrong. If I inadvertently speed, I am also wrong. Its a shame however that the puritans amongst us (as in society) choose to finger-point and reel out a condescending attitude, rather than simply educate. Cramming how wrong someone is for not knowing something down their throat, is a poor attitude when the alternative is proactive education

Additionally, drivers are feeling the brunt of it at the moment. It seems wrong to me that a minor inadvertent incursion into say an "olympic" lane, gets you a bigger fine than some scum-bags get for shoplifting

Driving doesn't feel like a priviliage, it feels lat the moment ike you pay to bring your own cash cow to the government to milk for you, and that at every opportunity if they can claw a bit more off you they will

 

[nilagin]

Dear god, no wonder some people's driving skills are dubious at best when they try to make excuses like some of the ones I've seen in this thread, especially with the "I cannot be to blame" attitude.

No-one in this thread has claimed they "can not be to blame"

Maybe you like to stop dead in the middle of an island because no one told you your exit was blocked? Maybe cross hatched boxes should apply to everyone but you? Dont want to inform the dvla about a medical condition, but its ok because they havent asked you? Or the personal favourite that I see loads of people do - making no effort to keep to your lane on an island, happily cutting across other lanes without a care in the world.

Are we at sea now? An island is a raised divider (usually with kerbs and sometimes used by pedestrians whilst crossing the road) between opposing lanes of traffic, sometimes it will be painted lines. It is illegal to drive over the lines so I can't imagine what you think you'd be doing on it in the first place let alone thinking someone else might stop on or cut across one.

It is YOUR responsibility to keep up to date with changes in the law and highway code.

It is YOUR responsibility to ensure you know the limits and laws of the vehicle you are driving.

It is YOUR responsibility end of.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of bad drivers making excuses all the time. Your driving licence is a privilege not a right - don't abuse that privilege by not observing constantly changing laws and regulations and becoming blindingly ignorant and defensive when you're told it's your responsibility, no one else's.

If you don't know the laws such as speed limits for a vehicle you are about to drive - its 5 mins on google to find out! It doesn't take long, or take any real effort to keep up to date with major variations in the law such as speed limit adjustments.

Bring back the days where people took responsibility for their actions.

Seems you best read the old stuff in the Highway Code and not just updated stuff if you don't know what was in there at least 32 years ago when I took my test.

I've a pretty good idea of the limits of my car, don't think the police or anyone else would be too impressed if I used them on public roads though.

How do you come to the conclusion we are bad drivers, you could know every rule in the book and still be a bad driver, (think you've proved that by driving over islands). I could probably follow you along a road and point out loads of other things that would make you a bad driver.
Of course the driving license is a right. You pay your money for a provisional license, take lessons, take a test and if you pass, they give you a license. If they just gave them away, to say, people with ginger hair, that would be a privilege.
Just when were these days when people took reponsibility for their actions, I've already named two people who were in there 80's and they never knew about keeping up to date with the highway code.

 

[MartynK]

Bring back the days where people took responsibility for their actions.

When was this utopian period?

 

[wack61]

I have a feeling the rules change between commercial and private use...... could be wrong though!

Where does it say that

 

[Bernie174]

Richard

Driving is a personal choice, it's not compulsory. If therefore you want to do it, it's your resposbility to ensure you do it legally.
I don't doubt your straw poll, but shouldn't the question have been, if you're going to drive a vehicle of a class you don't normally, would you check what you can and can't do first, or not?
The fact that someone doesn't know a piece of legislation that doesn't normally apply to them isn't conclusive evidence of anything.
I used to drive a van reasonably often, albeit, it was white, had police written all over it and a great outside car music and lighting system. I don't have to now. So, I don't look at legislation concerning vans. However, if I had to say rent one, then I'd check what I could and couldn't do.
It's as simple as that.
Oh, and police need training in Road Traffic Law, because they can't all drive themselves. I couldn't when I joined. Also, a large proportion of that training involves classes of vehicle you wouldn't drive anyway, eg Goods vehicle buses and milk floats (Yep, that one was included!). Because the average new police officer doesn't drive most of them, you do need training on the subject.

 

[Richard King]

Richard

Driving is a personal choice, it's not compulsory. If therefore you want to do it, it's your resposbility to ensure you do it legally.
I don't doubt your straw poll, but shouldn't the question have been, if you're going to drive a vehicle of a class you don't normally, would you check what you can and can't do first, or not?
The fact that someone doesn't know a piece of legislation that doesn't normally apply to them isn't conclusive evidence of anything.
I used to drive a van reasonably often, albeit, it was white, had police written all over it and a great outside car music and lighting system. I don't have to now. So, I don't look at legislation concerning vans. However, if I had to say rent one, then I'd check what I could and couldn't do.
It's as simple as that.
Oh, and police need training in Road Traffic Law, because they can't all drive themselves. I couldn't when I joined. Also, a large proportion of that training involves classes of vehicle you wouldn't drive anyway, eg Goods vehicle buses and milk floats (Yep, that one was included!). Because the average new police officer doesn't drive most of them, you do need training on the subject.

I asked first "who has ever driven a transit van" and only one hadn't - the person who got the answer right

 

[Ploddles]

I asked first "who has ever driven a transit van" and only one hadn't - the person who got the answer right

Just proves the 'white van man' theory.

 

[pollie]

I remember when I worked in a ford dealership with some company van drivers moaning about this when they changed from fiesta van to transit connect as the transit had the lower limit

Doesnt the Fiesta [car derived] have the lower limit?

 

[pollie]

Whilst broadly in agreement that the responsibility is with the licence holder to be aware of the laws governing operation of a motor vehicle they intend to use, with the plethora of primary legislation being passed by government every year, never mind the enormous volume of statutory instruments which are not primary legislation, it is entirely possible that unless one spends one's life reading Hansard and the statutelaw website, or HMSO bookshops, one might not be aware of every legal obligation one is under.

The DVLA is in the fortunate position of having the address of every UK driving licence holder. There may be a few left with grandfather rights, but it can't be many. They could use this to communicate with licence holders when there are significant changes affecting them. A change in national speed limits for a vehicle in a class they are entitled to drive would be one such situation. If they were concerned about the cost of sending out letters, they could abolish SORN and use the stamps that they save from not sending out the SORN reminders and "your car is now SORNed" letters.

Whats SORN? [same old retoric nonsense]

 

[pollie]

in fact, if we had to have a full eye test, fields test, drugs test and a quick written test and a 20 min road test every 5 years, and the requirement to do CET style tests once every few months,

It would be great, then half the drivers wouldnt be on the road!

:bonk:

 

[u8myufo]

This came to light as a friend of mine was nicked for 71mph driving a Transit van on a dual carriageway. He wrote a letter explaining that he had never heard of anyone getting nicked for doing 1mph over the limit. The police wrote back explaing that 7 years ago the law changed regarding vans and he was being done for 11mph over the limit.

The law states that on a dual cariageway where a car can do 70, the limit for a van is 60. On a single carriageway where a car can do 60, for a van its 50.
The only exception to this rule is what they are calling car-derived vans like small Fiesta or Escort vans. So if you drive something like a Vito, Transit or similar panel van, beware.

See here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelA...G_178867?CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=speed_limits

Mick.

Yup! I knew that one Mick, but I wonder how many car drivers are aware that if a dual carriageway is not divided by a central crash barrier the legal speed limit is not 70mph, quite a few of them from what I see on a daily basis.

 

[FourRingCircus]

Nearly correct Rich. Law doesn't state anything about a crash barrier (unless it's chaged recently).

Dual carriageway with a central reservation 70mph

Dual carriageway without a central reservation 60mph