Near Miss of the Day 713: Driver asked not to close pass... then does it again

chrisonatrike wrote:

I still think general retests have a purpose but more frequent testing for those with points sounds like a clever addition. To be paid for by those drivers the same as "driver education" courses.

I think a retest when you pick up a certain amount of points is entirely reasonable. If it came with the requirement to refrain from driving until the test was completed, to effectively act as a short ban then that would be no bad thing either.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I agree about the cam footage. It can be done - as shown by some forces, some of the time. (And is also most often provided by drivers, I believe - those entitled vigilante trolls!) Unfortunately it's not "free" - it definitely needs some manpower and that clearly is a deterrent for some forces. Could some of the admin be done by non-police-officers to reduce cost / "free up cops to focus on 'real crime'"?

This would be a perfect example of a national need to be created centrally and deployed to each Chief Constable and PCC.

That is a video assessment service to identify the vehicle registration, like ANPRS, query DVLA and Insurance records, and present the relevant section of video for assessment. So that's all doable now.

With Machine Learning those human assessments will train the application so that at some point high or complete automation can be achieved. Thus it will be a new normal in road safety, at least on close passing.

Over time more scenarios can be added, up to the point of self driving vehicles making human selfishness and stupidity irrelevant to road safety.

This can't be left to each Police Service to do as it's too hard. Better to free them up for 'real crime'...

Bungle_52 wrote:

Do we necessarilty need more police on the roads, they have a whole army of volunteers submitting footage to them.

For one example ... doubling the penalties for using a handheld mobile phone at the wheel is going to make little difference to how many people do it because there is no deterent ... if you don't think you will be caught, the size of the penalty is irrelevant. 

The majority of cyclists with cameras are not "doing a cyclingmikey" but simply making sure there is a record of dangerous actions taken by drivers while overtaking, or otherwise manoeuvring around them, so the "army of volunteers" does not increase the likelihood of drivers stopping using their phones.

More visible policing would. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

For one example ... doubling the penalties for using a handheld mobile phone at the wheel is going to make little difference to how many people do it because there is no deterent ... if you don't think you will be caught, the size of the penalty is irrelevant

Since smartphones have GNSS and Accelerometers it is a global big tech scandal that Apple and Alphabet have not deployed a driving lock on phones.

Since they also have map data they can be fully aware that the device is travelling on a road, and if it is paired to a hands free accessory.

Whilst the mobile industry may resist this Innovation, governments need to do something meaningful for road safety.

Virtue signalling perhaps, but Apple has certainly imposed on its customers before. At least this could be doing good and reduce insurance costs too...

Don't know about Alphabet but Apple certainly do have a driving lock. Mine triggered when I was sitting on a train

It seems at times that with covid lockdowns etc, some have been off the road and forgotten how to drive. I had to work a night last year and drive to the office. The evening drive in was fine, but the drive home the next day was like carnage on the roads. At least three accidents on the M25 and one so bad on the M20 it had closed it.