| ▲ | PaulRobinson 6 days ago |
| As somebody who has driven in a few places around the World, I would say that overall the standard of driving and safety is remarkably high in the UK given that the road layouts are often quite confusing (we have roads in use today from Roman, Saxon, Norman, Medieval, Tudor and more modern phases of development, so it can get confusing), and the level of signage around some confusing layouts is much lower than, say, California. This is because the rules are more complex, but actually get a license is, too. There are plenty of bad drivers, there are still idiots who drink/take drugs/use their mobile phones while driving, but it's way, way less than in some other parts of the World. And the rules of the road are broadly followed in terms of lane discipline and right of way in a way that they aren't in much of Europe or elsewhere. I sometimes wish that we had clearer lane signage in some parts of the road network, like that seen in the US, but overall, once you get it, it's all very straightforward. |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The one thing we should take from US driving is put above-lane signs in a lot more places. Writing the sign on the road is useless in traffic. |
|
| ▲ | rkomorn 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Getting my driver's license in France required 20 hours of instruction by an accredited driving school. Getting my license in the US (CA and NJ) required... showing up with my own car. And in New Jersey, they even forgot to make me take the actual driving test. |
| |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | As usual the UK is much more flexible, but perhaps also more pragmatic than France: there is no requirement to take any lessons to take the driving test. They don't care. What they care about is your driving. Now, in practice this means you probably need more than 20 hours with an instructor plus practicing with family to pass the test. | |
| ▲ | inferiorhuman 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In California it's more than showing up (although I think none of the tests are particularly rigorous). Minors must: - Complete a 30 hour driver's education course and 6 hours of driver's training - Pass a knowledge test with 80% or more questions answered correctly - Apply for and receive an instruction permit - Maintain the permit for 6+ months - Drive with an 25+ year old adult supervising for at least
50 hours (including 10 night hours) - Pass a behind-the-wheel test Adults must: - Pass a knowledge test with 80% or more questions answered correctly - Apply for and receive an instruction permit - Maintain the permit for 6+ months - Drive with an adult supervising for at least 50 hours
(including 10 night hours) - Pass a behind-the-wheel test Minors have additional restrictions on recently issued licenses. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Your CA adults requirements do not match what I experienced in 2005, aside from passing the knowledge test. Maybe that's changed a lot in 20 years. | | |
| ▲ | kimixa 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It also doesn't match what I experienced in 2015, though having a foreign driver's license may have skipped some of the requirements (though they never actually asked for for it when getting my provisional license, they might have just assumed?), the actual testing felt like a joke compared to the equivalent in the UK. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | baud147258 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 20 hours? You were a quick one, that took me close to 40. Though I never was a very good driver, the car I crashed can attest to that (and thankfully with no corporal damage other than a bruised ego). | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 6 days ago | parent [-] | | 20 hours was the mandatory (minimum) amount. I think I did around 25. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | iowa requires 30 hours of classroom training if you are under 18 - which almost everyone is when first getting a license. Once you have a licenese anywhere though you just show up. So your classroom time in frace counted in the us |
|
|
| ▲ | gambiting 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've lived in the UK for over 15 years now and I still can't get over people's general allergy for using indicators. And I know the test and training specifically tell you that you must use indicators when changing lanes and turning, but if I had a penny for every time I see someone on the motorway changing lanes without indicating I'd make a very good middle class salary from that alone. But yes, other than this people do generally drive really safely. I especially like how people mostly keep to the 30mph limit in towns(but then again, people get literally offended when you say you keep to the 20mph limit, like you're some kind of idiot for doing so). |
| |
| ▲ | Lio 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Those not indicating are bad drivers. However, I'm not sure if this is what you mean but when changing lanes on a British Motorway you only need to indicate when pulling out not when pulling in. Sometimes it can be helpful to do so when pulling in too but it's not a legal requirement since undertaking (except in slow moving traffic) is also ilegal. | | |
| ▲ | gambiting 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "changing lanes on a British Motorway you only need to indicate when pulling out not when pulling in." I've heard multiple people say this in the past, including driving instructors(!!!!!) and it's just not true. Highway Code article 133 clearly says: "Lane discipline
133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over". You always have to indicate when changing lanes. There is no distinction made between pulling in or out by the highway code, I honestly think people made it up in their heads and they keep to it - maybe because you don't need to indicate back when overtaking on a single lane road, but that doesn't apply on multi-lane carriageways. However the point seems to be mostly academic as in my experience most people don't bother indicating at all on a motorway, whether pulling in or out. "since undertaking (except in slow moving traffic) is also ilegal." Highway code doesn't mention anything about slow moving traffic, just "similar speeds" - so it's perfectly legal to undertake a vehicle going 68mph when you're going 70mph, if the traffic is heavy: "Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake." |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 30mph is an unsafe speed for towns or anywhere where cars coexist with pedestrians or bikes. | | |
| ▲ | GJim 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The "experiment" in Wales has proven what a disaster reducing this speed was. Urban area limits are now being raised back to 30 mph. | | |
| ▲ | gambiting 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What are you talking about - the Wales experiment as you called it has clearly shown it's a good idea - I wish it was implemented everywhere now and the numbers clearly support it. It's only being raised back up to 30 in areas where 1) the data suggests no improvement(which was always the intention of the change) 2) the issue became political and the limits are raised no matter what the data says Overall for Wales the improvement in safety has been undeniable though and it's hard to disagree with it. |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 100% agreed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | CalRobert 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Confusing roads are safer though, it forces drivers to pay more attention |
| |
| ▲ | PaulRobinson 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Kinda. In South Kensington, they spent a fortune trying to use this non-delineated road setup where its not clear quite where the pavements (sidewalks for the USians), and road borders are, and in theory it means everybody just becomes very hyper aware of each other. The theory goes something like how cycle lanes - just the a white line down the side of the road - can cause drivers to pass much closer to cyclists than they otherwise would without that border there, where a driver might slow and move a few feet out to the side on a single carriageway. In reality, it's actually kind of anxiety inducing, particularly if you're in a larger crowd (common at this time of year, as Royal Albert Hall where proms season is coming to a close is at one end of this area), because drivers don't really seem to know what is going on. I suspect it means cars are, on average, slowing down, but I can't find stats on whether its reduced accidents or not. I know it makes me nervous though. | | |
| ▲ | avianlyric 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s South Kensington, part of council that’s notorious for its hatred of anything that even vaguely looks like a bike or a bike lane. Their attitudes to road design are despicable, with a clear priority for cars over any other road user. It often feels like they only provide pedestrian or cycle infrastructure as a grudging acknowledgement of the fact the vast majority of people walk or cycle, and car users are in the minority. All of that is a long way of saying that any road infrastructure South Kensington designed is going to be a long way behind best practice for pedestrian safety, even when they’re trying. |
| |
| ▲ | piker 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | More importantly, it selects against a lot of nervous, disabled, young, drunk and other bad drivers. | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, better to be confused and drive in to a ditch at 20 mph than confident and t-bone a family at 50. Not sure what you mean about disabled? If nothing else a confusing road will get drivers to put the goddamn phone down. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Yeah, better to be confused and drive in to a ditch at 20 mph than confident and t-bone a family at 50. This shouldn't be subjective at all. It's very easy to calculate out minutes lost to traffic from minor accidents vs death causing accidents and compare the two and see where the crossover points are depending upon their relative rates and impacts. To use an extreme hypothetical example, I don't even know how old you are but it's probably perfectly justifiable 10x over to just shoot you (or me or anyone short of the pope) and throw you in the Hudson if the alternative is "the George Washington is closed for 6hr" or something. And on the other end of the spectrum roads get closed for months on whims for maintenance reasons in rural areas all the time and probably have less cumulative life lost than, idk, some mundane waste of time. I'm not privy to the numbers for all the real world situations that exist in the middle ground but I'm sure they're out there and once you've got them it's simple math to decide what configuration results in less life lost. Obviously you can pro-rate the years, account for disability and injury, add money to the equation, etc. But that's all easy if you've got the numbers (which we generally do for auto accidents). | |
| ▲ | piker 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | By disabled I mean, for example, my father has polio and has driven his entire life in the US but would be unable to do so physically in the UK because of the demands the civil engineering would impose on him here. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 6 days ago | parent [-] | | To be honest, that sounds like he's not safe to drive in the US either. | | |
| ▲ | piker 6 days ago | parent [-] | | He had one accident in almost 60 years of driving, so I think he'd be on the safe end of human statistics. But then again, what human is safe to drive? [Edit: I should note that he's stopped driving over the last couple of years.] |
|
|
|
|
|
