UPDATE: Miracle escape for elderly woman after car overturns as Poole's Twin Sails bridge is lifting

Bournemouth Echo: Woman trapped in car after it overturns as Poole's Twin Sails bridge is lifting Woman trapped in car after it overturns as Poole's Twin Sails bridge is lifting

AN elderly motorist had a miracle escape after her car smashed through safety barriers and jumped across Poole’s Twin Sails Bridge as it was lifting.

The 86-year-old drove through the barriers at around 20mph while the red warning lights were flashing, and ended up flipping her car onto its roof on the other side.

Bournemouth Echo:

Image from Alex Evans

Quick-thinking bridge operators managed to stop the Twin Sails from rising any further after she ploughed through the barriers, but there wasn’t enough time to return the leaves to the horizontal position before the Renault Clio jumped across.

The pensioner, who only suffered minor injuries, was put onto a spinal board as a precaution and taken to Poole Hospital for treatment.

A Dorset Police spokesman told the Daily Echo: “All the flashing lights were on and the barriers had come down. Witnesses said she’s come right through the barrier at about 15-20mph as the bridge was opening.

“They immediately stopped opening the bridge but she’s carried on driving up the ramp and that’s flipped her over onto her roof. Luckily she’s only sustained minor injuries.”

Bournemouth Echo:

Image from Alex Evans

Emergency services were called around 11.30am.

Firefighters and paramedics worked to safely remove the Poole woman from her car, which was travelling towards Poole from the Hamworthy side of the bridge. There was no-one else travelling with her.

A Dorset Fire and Rescue Service spokesman said: “We secured the vehicle to stabilise it, to stop the casualty moving about. There was about seven foot between the car and the edge of the bridge.”

Police closed the bridge while the rescue operation took place, and it remained closed to traffic - to enable engineers to mend the broken safety barrier – until around 3pm.

Neil Wilson, who was passing by close to the time of the accident, said: “There was a car on its roof on the Poole side, but is a bit weird because it is on the other side of the barrier.

“There were about five police cars, plus a fire engine and an ambulance, and there were firemen gathered around the car on the bridge.”

Another witness, who asked not to be named, said: “It’s really lucky she’s not been more seriously hurt. To be honest, I first thought it was a boy racer trying to jump across. It must have given the bridge operator one hell of a shock.”

Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services, Borough of Poole, said: “The Twin Sails Bridge has re-opened to traffic and is operating normally following a traffic incident earlier today.

“The incident occurred as the Twin Sails Bridge started its scheduled lift at 11.30am. We have reviewed CCTV footage captured at the time and can confirm the bridge lifting sequence was operating normally, including the warning lights and barrier system.

“Following the incident, the bridge operator alerted emergency services, engineers and traffic management staff. The approach roads to the bridge were closed while the emergency services attended the incident.

“An initial inspection revealed only superficial damage to the bridge and following safety tests it re-opened to traffic shortly after 3pm. We would like to thank road users for their patience during this incident.”

 

Comments (110)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:18pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Very unlucky that it happened to be working for a change!
Very unlucky that it happened to be working for a change! speedy231278

12:19pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Matthew_Y says...

I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users. Matthew_Y

12:26pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Clearly didn't expect it to be working!
Clearly didn't expect it to be working! speedy231278

12:33pm Fri 6 Dec 13

admiralalex says...

According to the radio broadcast by Poole Harbour Control, the barrier on the Hamworthy side wasn't closed as the bridge was lifting and the woman drove off the edge when it was up. The barrier on the Poole side was broken by the fire brigade to enable them to gain access to the vehicle.
According to the radio broadcast by Poole Harbour Control, the barrier on the Hamworthy side wasn't closed as the bridge was lifting and the woman drove off the edge when it was up. The barrier on the Poole side was broken by the fire brigade to enable them to gain access to the vehicle. admiralalex

12:38pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

In which case someone will be getting a P45, and the operators a court case, I would imagine! Still didn't explain how someone doesn't notice the road lifting infront of them while driving until the title was edited to add the word 'elderly'.
In which case someone will be getting a P45, and the operators a court case, I would imagine! Still didn't explain how someone doesn't notice the road lifting infront of them while driving until the title was edited to add the word 'elderly'. speedy231278

12:40pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....
[quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate.... speedy231278

12:40pm Fri 6 Dec 13

static kill says...

oh my, the Echo must be besides themselves.
oh my, the Echo must be besides themselves. static kill

12:46pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people.
[quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people. Letcommonsenseprevail

12:47pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....
"despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate...." - where do you get this from? I think you will find that the vehicle went THROUGH the barrier. Dear me, can you people not read?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....[/p][/quote]"despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate...." - where do you get this from? I think you will find that the vehicle went THROUGH the barrier. Dear me, can you people not read? Letcommonsenseprevail

12:49pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Interesting that this story has been edited again to state that this woman 'smashed through the barriers' yet elsewhere a witness has stated the barrier on the side this driver approached from had not shut. Was it not shut, or did they simply observe it having been broken?
Interesting that this story has been edited again to state that this woman 'smashed through the barriers' yet elsewhere a witness has stated the barrier on the side this driver approached from had not shut. Was it not shut, or did they simply observe it having been broken? speedy231278

12:52pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....
"despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate...." - where do you get this from? I think you will find that the vehicle went THROUGH the barrier. Dear me, can you people not read?
Dear me, did you not read all the posts above before spouting off?

"According to the radio broadcast by Poole Harbour Control, the barrier on the Hamworthy side wasn't closed as the bridge was lifting and the woman drove off the edge when it was up."

Keep up with the traffic, old chap. We have conflicting reports of what happened, and initially the article did not state anything about the woman having supposedly crashed through the barrier.
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....[/p][/quote]"despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate...." - where do you get this from? I think you will find that the vehicle went THROUGH the barrier. Dear me, can you people not read?[/p][/quote]Dear me, did you not read all the posts above before spouting off? "According to the radio broadcast by Poole Harbour Control, the barrier on the Hamworthy side wasn't closed as the bridge was lifting and the woman drove off the edge when it was up." Keep up with the traffic, old chap. We have conflicting reports of what happened, and initially the article did not state anything about the woman having supposedly crashed through the barrier. speedy231278

1:16pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Linzy69 says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate...."despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....Letcommon
senseprevail - there are several reports that the barrier on the Hamworthy side did not lift, therefor Matthew_Y's comment is a valid one.
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]It appears the driver was 86, which won't have helped matters despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....[/p][/quote]"despite the initial cause being an apparent failure of the barrier to operate....Letcommon senseprevail - there are several reports that the barrier on the Hamworthy side did not lift, therefor Matthew_Y's comment is a valid one. Linzy69

1:20pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Dibbles2 says...

I wouldn't take alot of notice of the story as Its states she drove through the barrier on the Hamworthy side and if the bridge was up unless she is a stunt woman it would have landed in the sea and not gone over the other side. The way its facing the barrier suggested it landed the same side she tried to drive up. I hope she is ok though and until the facts are known blame is not a pleasant attribute.
I wouldn't take alot of notice of the story as Its states she drove through the barrier on the Hamworthy side and if the bridge was up unless she is a stunt woman it would have landed in the sea and not gone over the other side. The way its facing the barrier suggested it landed the same side she tried to drive up. I hope she is ok though and until the facts are known blame is not a pleasant attribute. Dibbles2

1:26pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Perhaps in due course we will get clarification on the conflicting reports of barrier failure vs barrier destruction, and we can decide whether this driver is utterly unfit to be on the road for not noticing the lights and the impact with the barrier, nor the raising bridge, or just utterly unfit for driving due to not noticing the bridge lifting after someone utterly unfit to operate the bridge failed to notice the barrier had not worked before instructing the bridge to lift.

Another embarrassing chapter on this white elephant regardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps in due course we will get clarification on the conflicting reports of barrier failure vs barrier destruction, and we can decide whether this driver is utterly unfit to be on the road for not noticing the lights and the impact with the barrier, nor the raising bridge, or just utterly unfit for driving due to not noticing the bridge lifting after someone utterly unfit to operate the bridge failed to notice the barrier had not worked before instructing the bridge to lift. Another embarrassing chapter on this white elephant regardless of the circumstances. speedy231278

1:37pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Stranger says...

She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......
She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought...... Stranger

1:58pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Stranger wrote:
She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......
It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual.
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......[/p][/quote]It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual. speedy231278

2:07pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Dibbles2 says...

Stranger wrote:
She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......
There is a picture of the barrier and it doesn't look like she crashed through it to me. Also I fear Poole council would take than 2 hours to fix a broken finger nail so surely 2 hours to fix a barrier is wishful thinking.
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......[/p][/quote]There is a picture of the barrier and it doesn't look like she crashed through it to me. Also I fear Poole council would take than 2 hours to fix a broken finger nail so surely 2 hours to fix a barrier is wishful thinking. Dibbles2

2:19pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ! bourne free

2:24pm Fri 6 Dec 13

anigel says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Stranger wrote:
She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......
It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual.
If the barrier didn't shut as several people are reporting then why would the fire brigade have had to break through an open barrier?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......[/p][/quote]It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual.[/p][/quote]If the barrier didn't shut as several people are reporting then why would the fire brigade have had to break through an open barrier? anigel

2:29pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Matthew_Y says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
Matthew_Y wrote:
I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.
Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people.
It would appear that Letcommonsenseprevai
l's assertion:

"Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people."

is not shared by everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Matthew_Y[/bold] wrote: I can't help feeling that unless this driver was taken ill at the wheel, or their vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, if they failed to notice the flashing lights, the audible warning or the red and white barriers across the road in front of them when the bridge opens, then they should have their licence withdrawn for the sake and safety of other road users.[/p][/quote]Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people.[/p][/quote]It would appear that Letcommonsenseprevai l's assertion: "Yes that's right - jump to the first conclusion that enters your tiny brains, people." is not shared by everyone. Matthew_Y

2:30pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

anigel wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Stranger wrote:
She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......
It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual.
If the barrier didn't shut as several people are reporting then why would the fire brigade have had to break through an open barrier?
They attended from the opposite side, if you read the above.
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: She must have "crashed through the barrier" if they are damaged and require fixing? Just a thought......[/p][/quote]It was suggested elsewhere that the fire brigade had to force their way through one of the gates to attend the scene. Perhaps we shall discover in due course that they merely used the previously damaged gateway . Or more likely, the story won't ever get updated again and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions like usual.[/p][/quote]If the barrier didn't shut as several people are reporting then why would the fire brigade have had to break through an open barrier?[/p][/quote]They attended from the opposite side, if you read the above. speedy231278

2:32pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke. speedy231278

2:41pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ? bourne free

2:47pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is. speedy231278

2:52pm Fri 6 Dec 13

High Treason says...

Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time.
Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time. High Treason

3:14pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
Yeah but it looks fabulous at night !
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.[/p][/quote]Yeah but it looks fabulous at night ! bourne free

3:22pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
Yeah but it looks fabulous at night !
Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.[/p][/quote]Yeah but it looks fabulous at night ![/p][/quote]Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever. speedy231278

3:23pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Frank28 says...

Haven't they got sensors on the bridge to ensure there's no cars or people on it before it opens? Had this incident happened during darkness, it could have been even more serious.
Haven't they got sensors on the bridge to ensure there's no cars or people on it before it opens? Had this incident happened during darkness, it could have been even more serious. Frank28

3:24pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Wackerone wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time.
Of course they have, how do you think the operators stopped the lift when they saw that the idiot had driven through the barrier. And for the info to other posters, with all the safety mechanisms in place, the bridge would not lift if the barriers were not closed.
You have definitive proof about the latter, I presume? You know for certain that no failure occurred which somehow allowed the bridge to start lifting in the event that it was not the case this driver simply ploughed blindly through the gate and on to potential oblivion?
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time.[/p][/quote]Of course they have, how do you think the operators stopped the lift when they saw that the idiot had driven through the barrier. And for the info to other posters, with all the safety mechanisms in place, the bridge would not lift if the barriers were not closed.[/p][/quote]You have definitive proof about the latter, I presume? You know for certain that no failure occurred which somehow allowed the bridge to start lifting in the event that it was not the case this driver simply ploughed blindly through the gate and on to potential oblivion? speedy231278

3:25pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Frank28 wrote:
Haven't they got sensors on the bridge to ensure there's no cars or people on it before it opens? Had this incident happened during darkness, it could have been even more serious.
Sensors? There's no sense with this stupid creation full stop!
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: Haven't they got sensors on the bridge to ensure there's no cars or people on it before it opens? Had this incident happened during darkness, it could have been even more serious.[/p][/quote]Sensors? There's no sense with this stupid creation full stop! speedy231278

3:27pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
Yeah but it looks fabulous at night !
Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.
Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up !
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.[/p][/quote]Yeah but it looks fabulous at night ![/p][/quote]Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up ! bourne free

3:30pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
Yeah but it looks fabulous at night !
Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.
Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up !
With such fascination in form over function, I must assume you are one of our inept councillors who get taken in by flashy presentations from the greedy con merchants like the people who build expensive and dysfunctional bridges, buildings and surf reefs due to benefit in kind? Kindly leave the trough and find a different brewery to fail to organise a party in.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.[/p][/quote]Yeah but it looks fabulous at night ![/p][/quote]Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up ![/p][/quote]With such fascination in form over function, I must assume you are one of our inept councillors who get taken in by flashy presentations from the greedy con merchants like the people who build expensive and dysfunctional bridges, buildings and surf reefs due to benefit in kind? Kindly leave the trough and find a different brewery to fail to organise a party in. speedy231278

3:44pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
Speedy 1234567689
Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge !
You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.
Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?
How about:

It is unnecessary
The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened
It breaks all the time
It cost too much
The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used
The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed
The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for
A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months
It goes into the middle of nowehere
It's a national joke
The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it
It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it

In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.
Yeah but it looks fabulous at night !
Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.
Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up !
With such fascination in form over function, I must assume you are one of our inept councillors who get taken in by flashy presentations from the greedy con merchants like the people who build expensive and dysfunctional bridges, buildings and surf reefs due to benefit in kind? Kindly leave the trough and find a different brewery to fail to organise a party in.
When your queuing in the dark could you put your hazards on as it adds to the flashy night pictures and a really red face would add the the atmosphere !
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: Speedy 1234567689 Can you sit down now , i think we get the fact you don't like our wonderful bridge ![/p][/quote]You have to have a wonderful bridge to start with. The Twin Fails Bodge is simply an ugly, unnecessary joke.[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with it , apart from the barriers being broken by the old lady and the doppy fireman at the other side ?[/p][/quote]How about: It is unnecessary The old bridge has broken less time in it's entire life than this one before it even opened It breaks all the time It cost too much The deck material fell off in great chunks when it was first used The hydraulic system failed very early on resulting in a halving of the lifting speed The manufacturer quibbled about fixing stuff claiming the bridge only had a one year warranty (a period after commissioning that it was never reliable for A large portion of the hydraulic system had to be replaced as it wore out/was the wrong spec after only a few months It goes into the middle of nowehere It's a national joke The only beneficiaries are those on the board of the contractors who built it It's a stupid design that vastly increased the cost of building and operating it In other words, it's about as useful to the area as the IMAX was and surf reef is.[/p][/quote]Yeah but it looks fabulous at night ![/p][/quote]Oh goody, it looks good (allegedly). That'll please people stuck in traffic when it breaks again. "Never mind darling, we're going to miss the event we were going to because this bridge has broken, but hey, it sure looks pretty!". Said no-one. ever.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the lady today was also late and couldn't wait like you and now its broken again by impatient people like you ? But it still looks beautiful at night when its up ![/p][/quote]With such fascination in form over function, I must assume you are one of our inept councillors who get taken in by flashy presentations from the greedy con merchants like the people who build expensive and dysfunctional bridges, buildings and surf reefs due to benefit in kind? Kindly leave the trough and find a different brewery to fail to organise a party in.[/p][/quote]When your queuing in the dark could you put your hazards on as it adds to the flashy night pictures and a really red face would add the the atmosphere ! bourne free

3:45pm Fri 6 Dec 13

live-and-let-live says...

5 police cars???? rolls eyes
5 police cars???? rolls eyes live-and-let-live

3:45pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Ms daisy says...

Regardless if the driver was at fault or the bridge mechanics Im glad this lady wasnt badly injured.
Regardless if the driver was at fault or the bridge mechanics Im glad this lady wasnt badly injured. Ms daisy

3:51pm Fri 6 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

So who recalls a genuine incident like this on London's Tower Bridge in the 1950's? Then the driver of a ten ton red London double-decker bus, in service and laden with passengers, had to suddenly decide whether to take his chances leaping the malfunctioning unintentionally lifting bridge plates or stop and hope and pray they stopped rising - which in the event they did not. For the record he did wisely leap across the ever widening gap above the Thames river and everyone survived, although the suspension on the bus doubtless needed a little attention after the incident!
So who recalls a genuine incident like this on London's Tower Bridge in the 1950's? Then the driver of a ten ton red London double-decker bus, in service and laden with passengers, had to suddenly decide whether to take his chances leaping the malfunctioning unintentionally lifting bridge plates or stop and hope and pray they stopped rising - which in the event they did not. For the record he did wisely leap across the ever widening gap above the Thames river and everyone survived, although the suspension on the bus doubtless needed a little attention after the incident! muscliffman

3:58pm Fri 6 Dec 13

spendy26 says...

Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65! spendy26

4:20pm Fri 6 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers!
Clearly not!!!
Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!!
Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!! MCAME1989

4:28pm Fri 6 Dec 13

SeafaringMan says...

spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
[quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months! SeafaringMan

4:41pm Fri 6 Dec 13

sc61 says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers!
Clearly not!!!
Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!!
I think you'll find that's something to do with the average age of the population in these parts.
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!![/p][/quote]I think you'll find that's something to do with the average age of the population in these parts. sc61

4:42pm Fri 6 Dec 13

arthur1948 says...

Was she a church goer?.....or perhaps that only gets.mentioned in sex cases
Was she a church goer?.....or perhaps that only gets.mentioned in sex cases arthur1948

4:42pm Fri 6 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

Should have gone to specsavers.......
Should have gone to specsavers....... BIGTONE

4:46pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.
So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions. retry69

4:49pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

She made a mistake it could happen to anyone.
She made a mistake it could happen to anyone. retry69

4:53pm Fri 6 Dec 13

The irate commuter says...

Was she being chased by Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane ?
Was she being chased by Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane ? The irate commuter

4:57pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

retry69 wrote:
She made a mistake it could happen to anyone.
anyone who is not fit to drive, you presumably mean?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: She made a mistake it could happen to anyone.[/p][/quote]anyone who is not fit to drive, you presumably mean? speedy231278

4:57pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

retry69 wrote:
So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.
Only to people who would fail.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.[/p][/quote]Only to people who would fail. speedy231278

4:59pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Baywolf says...

Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?
Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights? Baywolf

4:59pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

I see it's now been upgraded to a 'miracle escape'. Was Jesus Christ also in attendance then?
I see it's now been upgraded to a 'miracle escape'. Was Jesus Christ also in attendance then? speedy231278

5:00pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Baywolf wrote:
Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?
We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.
[quote][p][bold]Baywolf[/bold] wrote: Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?[/p][/quote]We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from. speedy231278

5:12pm Fri 6 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers!
Clearly not!!!
Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!!
Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts.
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!![/p][/quote]Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts. muscliffman

5:17pm Fri 6 Dec 13

nigelperkins says...

supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.
supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between. nigelperkins

5:18pm Fri 6 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

SeafaringMan wrote:
spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve!
[quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months![/p][/quote]I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve! muscliffman

5:24pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Baywolf wrote:
Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?
We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.
She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baywolf[/bold] wrote: Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?[/p][/quote]We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.[/p][/quote]She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !! bourne free

5:32pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Blob01 says...

retry69 wrote:
So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.
Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.[/p][/quote]Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there? Blob01

5:34pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Dorset Mitch says...

SeafaringMan wrote:
spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
Retest everyone every ten years when your licence expires. You get and bad drivers from all age groups.

Include more in the test such as a certain number of hours instruction, car control, Safe Drive Presentation etc.

Then when your licence expires go to a approved instructor for a reassessment to reapply for your licence.
[quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months![/p][/quote]Retest everyone every ten years when your licence expires. You get and bad drivers from all age groups. Include more in the test such as a certain number of hours instruction, car control, Safe Drive Presentation etc. Then when your licence expires go to a approved instructor for a reassessment to reapply for your licence. Dorset Mitch

5:36pm Fri 6 Dec 13

MJD says...

For thoughts that don't know, both bridges the control centre is in between both bridges on the Hamworthy side and the operator has a clear visual of both bridges. There is too much speculation here and the Daily Echo have been know to get it wrong before.
For thoughts that don't know, both bridges the control centre is in between both bridges on the Hamworthy side and the operator has a clear visual of both bridges. There is too much speculation here and the Daily Echo have been know to get it wrong before. MJD

5:37pm Fri 6 Dec 13

ronlin says...

spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
Believe me , there are hundreds of drivers over 65 and more who are as safe as anyone else if not safer , infact the insurance stats prove it . So please dont make accusations about something you know nothing about .
[quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]Believe me , there are hundreds of drivers over 65 and more who are as safe as anyone else if not safer , infact the insurance stats prove it . So please dont make accusations about something you know nothing about . ronlin

5:55pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

muscliffman wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve!
Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months![/p][/quote]I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve![/p][/quote]Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving! speedy231278

5:58pm Fri 6 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Baywolf wrote:
Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?
We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.
She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !!
So why are we told in the fourth post that the Pool Harbour Control radio stated the barrier was not closed before the car was driven onto the bridge?
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baywolf[/bold] wrote: Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?[/p][/quote]We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.[/p][/quote]She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !![/p][/quote]So why are we told in the fourth post that the Pool Harbour Control radio stated the barrier was not closed before the car was driven onto the bridge? speedy231278

6:01pm Fri 6 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

Blob01 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.
Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there?
Maybe after a certain age reactions are a little slower, but regardless of that the facts clearly confirm it is younger people whose mental condition is the least suited to driving - impulsive, reckless, irresponsible......a
ll well proven as far more dangerous on the road than being just a bit doddery!

('deteriorate' for info.)
[quote][p][bold]Blob01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.[/p][/quote]Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there?[/p][/quote]Maybe after a certain age reactions are a little slower, but regardless of that the facts clearly confirm it is younger people whose mental condition is the least suited to driving - impulsive, reckless, irresponsible......a ll well proven as far more dangerous on the road than being just a bit doddery! ('deteriorate' for info.) muscliffman

6:06pm Fri 6 Dec 13

bourne free says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bourne free wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Baywolf wrote:
Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?
We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.
She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !!
So why are we told in the fourth post that the Pool Harbour Control radio stated the barrier was not closed before the car was driven onto the bridge?
who the hell is poole harbour control radio / she like many others went straight through the barrier and big red flashing lights , she was cut out and apparently ok !
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baywolf[/bold] wrote: Ummm if you see flashing red lights and hear an alarm would you not stop? Goin through a barrier is one thing but flashing lights and an alarm? Really? Did the driver think them Xmas lights?[/p][/quote]We still haven't been informed if there is any truth in a radio report that stated the lights and barriers did not function on the end this car came onto the bridge from.[/p][/quote]She drove through the barriers on one side doing a dukes of hazard stunt and the fireman instead of asking for the gates to be opened broke the other side !![/p][/quote]So why are we told in the fourth post that the Pool Harbour Control radio stated the barrier was not closed before the car was driven onto the bridge?[/p][/quote]who the hell is poole harbour control radio / she like many others went straight through the barrier and big red flashing lights , she was cut out and apparently ok ! bourne free

6:14pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nigelperkins wrote:
supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.
The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)
[quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.[/p][/quote]The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :) retry69

6:50pm Fri 6 Dec 13

nigelperkins says...

retry69 wrote:
nigelperkins wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.
The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)
like nickynoo noo
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.[/p][/quote]The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)[/p][/quote]like nickynoo noo nigelperkins

7:01pm Fri 6 Dec 13

gurfy says...

Regardless of the operational status of the barriers, there is a huge difference in knowing that the road in front of you looks like this _ or this /
Regardless of the operational status of the barriers, there is a huge difference in knowing that the road in front of you looks like this _ or this / gurfy

7:02pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nigelperkins wrote:
retry69 wrote:
nigelperkins wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.
The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)
like nickynoo noo
Yeah I keep asking him/her if we are related first response was "absolutely not" second time no response LMFAO :)
[quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.[/p][/quote]The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)[/p][/quote]like nickynoo noo[/p][/quote]Yeah I keep asking him/her if we are related first response was "absolutely not" second time no response LMFAO :) retry69

7:02pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

nigelperkins wrote:
retry69 wrote:
nigelperkins wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.
The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)
like nickynoo noo
Yeah I keep asking him/her if we are related first response was "absolutely not" second time no response LMFAO :)
[quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelperkins[/bold] wrote: supergran does dukes of hazzard...........oh well at least she didnt hurt anyone. and to be honest that bridge shouldnt lift up until both ended barriers are down and nothing in between.[/p][/quote]The last bit sounds like some of our regular commenters "nothing in between" :)[/p][/quote]like nickynoo noo[/p][/quote]Yeah I keep asking him/her if we are related first response was "absolutely not" second time no response LMFAO :) retry69

7:06pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Sorry BOGOF
Sorry BOGOF retry69

7:14pm Fri 6 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

speedy231278 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve!
Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving!
That is not the point - just being a little silly if I may say. There are many commentators having a go here about older drivers, when the stats do clearly demonstrate that the main road safety problem is at the opposite end of the driver age scale.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months![/p][/quote]I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve![/p][/quote]Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving![/p][/quote]That is not the point - just being a little silly if I may say. There are many commentators having a go here about older drivers, when the stats do clearly demonstrate that the main road safety problem is at the opposite end of the driver age scale. muscliffman

7:32pm Fri 6 Dec 13

davecook says...

From the picture, I thought at first she had also mangled the railings between the road and pedestrian walkway, but then remembered this bridge was built with pre-mangled railings, presumably with incidents like this in mind............
From the picture, I thought at first she had also mangled the railings between the road and pedestrian walkway, but then remembered this bridge was built with pre-mangled railings, presumably with incidents like this in mind............ davecook

7:43pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Bournemouthfan2 says...

I suspect this makes two accidents this week due to elderly drivers firstly being unaware of their surroundings and then 'possibly' getting their accelerator and brake pedal mixed up in an auto (pure speculation). First one goes under a bus while going the wrong way up a bus lane then another tries to jump the bridge at Poole.
It is a fact that there are perfectly capable elderly drivers and perfectly capable young drivers, unfortunately there are also some totally incapable older drivers. I don't see that in the young, there are just some that are reckless and many that are inexperienced, they have however all passed a current driving test that many and quite possibly the majority of their elderly counterparts wouldn't stand a chance of passing.
I suspect this makes two accidents this week due to elderly drivers firstly being unaware of their surroundings and then 'possibly' getting their accelerator and brake pedal mixed up in an auto (pure speculation). First one goes under a bus while going the wrong way up a bus lane then another tries to jump the bridge at Poole. It is a fact that there are perfectly capable elderly drivers and perfectly capable young drivers, unfortunately there are also some totally incapable older drivers. I don't see that in the young, there are just some that are reckless and many that are inexperienced, they have however all passed a current driving test that many and quite possibly the majority of their elderly counterparts wouldn't stand a chance of passing. Bournemouthfan2

8:33pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Understated says...

people on here arguing over the circumstances and facts.

meanwhile.. i just cant stop laughing.
people on here arguing over the circumstances and facts. meanwhile.. i just cant stop laughing. Understated

8:39pm Fri 6 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Understated wrote:
people on here arguing over the circumstances and facts.

meanwhile.. i just cant stop laughing.
Probably the right attitude :)
[quote][p][bold]Understated[/bold] wrote: people on here arguing over the circumstances and facts. meanwhile.. i just cant stop laughing.[/p][/quote]Probably the right attitude :) retry69

9:00pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Frogmarch2 says...

I wonder if it was an automatic car?
I wonder if it was an automatic car? Frogmarch2

11:00pm Fri 6 Dec 13

GAHmusic says...

gurfy wrote:
Regardless of the operational status of the barriers, there is a huge difference in knowing that the road in front of you looks like this _ or this /
I must say top marks for creative use of ascii there, I like it
[quote][p][bold]gurfy[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the operational status of the barriers, there is a huge difference in knowing that the road in front of you looks like this _ or this /[/p][/quote]I must say top marks for creative use of ascii there, I like it GAHmusic

6:19am Sat 7 Dec 13

Ginny nz says...

Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!! Ginny nz

8:09am Sat 7 Dec 13

Carolyn43 says...

Ginny nz wrote:
Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc.

But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?
[quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!![/p][/quote]And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough? Carolyn43

8:53am Sat 7 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

retry69 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
If I thought rtery69 was related to me
I would stick him in a bag
climb to the top of the twin sails bridge
and chuck him in the ******* bay.
Cant even spell me fecking name right :)
What else is a gentleman supposed to do
with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: If I thought rtery69 was related to me I would stick him in a bag climb to the top of the twin sails bridge and chuck him in the ******* bay.[/p][/quote]Cant even spell me fecking name right :)[/p][/quote]What else is a gentleman supposed to do with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest. nickynoodah

10:20am Sat 7 Dec 13

ragj195 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Ginny nz wrote:
Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc.

But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?
Okay let's not group everyone together. The fact is you can't drive a car until you are 17. This is because of a number of obvious reasons. How come similar reasons don't apply at the other end of the age range?

It's pretty crazy that someone in their 90's can drive a car without any checks in place to see if they are competent.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!![/p][/quote]And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?[/p][/quote]Okay let's not group everyone together. The fact is you can't drive a car until you are 17. This is because of a number of obvious reasons. How come similar reasons don't apply at the other end of the age range? It's pretty crazy that someone in their 90's can drive a car without any checks in place to see if they are competent. ragj195

11:19am Sat 7 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

muscliffman wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
And for the under 25's every six months!
I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve!
Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving!
That is not the point - just being a little silly if I may say. There are many commentators having a go here about older drivers, when the stats do clearly demonstrate that the main road safety problem is at the opposite end of the driver age scale.
It is not being silly. Statistically, the most 'at risk' groups will be the least experienced and the those with diminishing skills/reflexes. So that would be the youngest age group and the oldest age group by and large. So if you remove under 25s, then under 35s become the most inexperienced on average, so then they will be one of the groups having the most accidents.

If the older end of the scale is not an issue, how many times this year have young drivers had nasty incidents while parking automatic cars versus elderly ones? How many boy racers as you would probably describe them have apparently crashed through a safety barrier after ignoring flashing lights and seemingly not noticed the road getting ever steeper infront of them and ending up upsidedown? I think if you go back over the last year, at least as many elderly drivers have been involved in accidents as young ones.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]And for the under 25's every six months![/p][/quote]I am sure there some very good younger drivers but if you look at the statistics there is much to recommend not allowing under 25's on the roads in the first place - road safety figures would unquestionably improve![/p][/quote]Then stats would show the under 35s were a risk, so remove them. Then the under 45s... eventually there would be no risk because no-one would be driving![/p][/quote]That is not the point - just being a little silly if I may say. There are many commentators having a go here about older drivers, when the stats do clearly demonstrate that the main road safety problem is at the opposite end of the driver age scale.[/p][/quote]It is not being silly. Statistically, the most 'at risk' groups will be the least experienced and the those with diminishing skills/reflexes. So that would be the youngest age group and the oldest age group by and large. So if you remove under 25s, then under 35s become the most inexperienced on average, so then they will be one of the groups having the most accidents. If the older end of the scale is not an issue, how many times this year have young drivers had nasty incidents while parking automatic cars versus elderly ones? How many boy racers as you would probably describe them have apparently crashed through a safety barrier after ignoring flashing lights and seemingly not noticed the road getting ever steeper infront of them and ending up upsidedown? I think if you go back over the last year, at least as many elderly drivers have been involved in accidents as young ones. speedy231278

12:19pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Chris the plumber says...

again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ! Chris the plumber

2:02pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
Bus drivers will 70 years old in a few years time
[quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]Bus drivers will 70 years old in a few years time Lord Spring

4:07pm Sat 7 Dec 13

madras says...

Someone explain where the 'miracle' comes in - fortunate escape, perhaps. But hardly miraculous?!
Someone explain where the 'miracle' comes in - fortunate escape, perhaps. But hardly miraculous?! madras

5:44pm Sat 7 Dec 13

nigelperkins says...

nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote: If I thought rtery69 was related to me I would stick him in a bag climb to the top of the twin sails bridge and chuck him in the ******* bay.
Cant even spell me fecking name right :)
What else is a gentleman supposed to do with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest.
and if nicky(doyaheadin)nan
inooh was a relation i would..........have asked the matron to use you for experiments......
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: If I thought rtery69 was related to me I would stick him in a bag climb to the top of the twin sails bridge and chuck him in the ******* bay.[/p][/quote]Cant even spell me fecking name right :)[/p][/quote]What else is a gentleman supposed to do with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest.[/p][/quote]and if nicky(doyaheadin)nan inooh was a relation i would..........have asked the matron to use you for experiments...... nigelperkins

5:45pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Bournefre says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident. Bournefre

6:18pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Chris the plumber says...

Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance. Chris the plumber

6:40pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Bournefre says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Well that's what I was told by someone who worked at RIAS.
My car insurance is cheap enough thank you, although hopefully I'll have the sense to surrender my licence before I'm old enough to crash through the barriers of a bridge and flip my car over.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Well that's what I was told by someone who worked at RIAS. My car insurance is cheap enough thank you, although hopefully I'll have the sense to surrender my licence before I'm old enough to crash through the barriers of a bridge and flip my car over. Bournefre

6:48pm Sat 7 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

muscliffman wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!!
Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts.
I never said over 50 was old!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!![/p][/quote]Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts.[/p][/quote]I never said over 50 was old! MCAME1989

6:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

MCAME1989 says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
MCAME1989 wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!!
Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts.
I never said over 50 was old!
And as for over 80's paying higher premiums...my grandads car Insurance is cheaper than mine!
He's in his 80's
Acts like he's in his 60's and has had more accidents than I could ever imagine me having!
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Over 50's get cheaper car insurance because they are "safer" drivers! Clearly not!!! Most accident you see or hear about are the elderly!![/p][/quote]Yes they do - and since when the heck has over 50 been old? The truly older drivers 80+ do pay higher premiums, but most road accidents are caused by the under 30's if you study the facts.[/p][/quote]I never said over 50 was old![/p][/quote]And as for over 80's paying higher premiums...my grandads car Insurance is cheaper than mine! He's in his 80's Acts like he's in his 60's and has had more accidents than I could ever imagine me having! MCAME1989

9:16pm Sat 7 Dec 13

ragj195 says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up.

As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this.

Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car. ragj195

10:28pm Sat 7 Dec 13

ronlin says...

Enough of this argument abut age and insurance cost , the real truth is people depend on their car so much these days and as you get older and less able to get about the more dependent the car becomes for every day activities , the trouble is we are unable to admit that we can do without the car even though our eyesight or reaction time isnt like it used to be and so we carry on driving , what we have to do is own up to our frailties and stop , we all get to this point at some time in our later lives and we have to bite the bullet own up to it and get off the road for everyones sake .
Enough of this argument abut age and insurance cost , the real truth is people depend on their car so much these days and as you get older and less able to get about the more dependent the car becomes for every day activities , the trouble is we are unable to admit that we can do without the car even though our eyesight or reaction time isnt like it used to be and so we carry on driving , what we have to do is own up to our frailties and stop , we all get to this point at some time in our later lives and we have to bite the bullet own up to it and get off the road for everyones sake . ronlin

8:13am Sun 8 Dec 13

Chris the plumber says...

ragj195 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up.

As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this.

Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time>
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.[/p][/quote]so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time> Chris the plumber

8:20am Sun 8 Dec 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Why is this a 'miracle' escape? Last time I checked, a miracle was an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. I have read the story several times and find no evidence whatsoever of godly intervention. A more accurate headline would have been 'Another OAP proves that driving tests should be re-taken at 60 years of age.'.
Why is this a 'miracle' escape? Last time I checked, a miracle was an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. I have read the story several times and find no evidence whatsoever of godly intervention. A more accurate headline would have been 'Another OAP proves that driving tests should be re-taken at 60 years of age.'. Letcommonsenseprevail

8:24am Sun 8 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

spendy26 wrote:
Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65!
Why not have a test to see if you can work past 65 .
[quote][p][bold]spendy26[/bold] wrote: Bring in compulsory driving test re- takes for the over 65![/p][/quote]Why not have a test to see if you can work past 65 . Lord Spring

8:25am Sun 8 Dec 13

Carolyn43 says...

ronlin wrote:
Enough of this argument abut age and insurance cost , the real truth is people depend on their car so much these days and as you get older and less able to get about the more dependent the car becomes for every day activities , the trouble is we are unable to admit that we can do without the car even though our eyesight or reaction time isnt like it used to be and so we carry on driving , what we have to do is own up to our frailties and stop , we all get to this point at some time in our later lives and we have to bite the bullet own up to it and get off the road for everyones sake .
My husband decided for himself that his reactions weren't up to driving and stopped at age 65. I'm 70 and recently decided to take a private test just to find out if I'm still competent to drive - I am. Was told there's nothing wrong with my reflexes or driving ability. I have my eyes tested two years, with a retinal scan every year. I wear spectacles to drive.

I think the "till 70" license should the the "till 60", with everyone over 60 being given a driving competence test (not necessarily a driving test) every three years maximum, and have to produce a certificate of satisfactory eye sight and health at the same time in order to renew a license. It might not cut accidents, but it might. An accident is an "unforeseen incident".

I've said before and I'll say it again, I get really annoyed when people are all lumped together. Not everyone under 25 s a good driver, nor are they all bad; not everyone over 65 is a good driver, nor are they all bad.
[quote][p][bold]ronlin[/bold] wrote: Enough of this argument abut age and insurance cost , the real truth is people depend on their car so much these days and as you get older and less able to get about the more dependent the car becomes for every day activities , the trouble is we are unable to admit that we can do without the car even though our eyesight or reaction time isnt like it used to be and so we carry on driving , what we have to do is own up to our frailties and stop , we all get to this point at some time in our later lives and we have to bite the bullet own up to it and get off the road for everyones sake .[/p][/quote]My husband decided for himself that his reactions weren't up to driving and stopped at age 65. I'm 70 and recently decided to take a private test just to find out if I'm still competent to drive - I am. Was told there's nothing wrong with my reflexes or driving ability. I have my eyes tested two years, with a retinal scan every year. I wear spectacles to drive. I think the "till 70" license should the the "till 60", with everyone over 60 being given a driving competence test (not necessarily a driving test) every three years maximum, and have to produce a certificate of satisfactory eye sight and health at the same time in order to renew a license. It might not cut accidents, but it might. An accident is an "unforeseen incident". I've said before and I'll say it again, I get really annoyed when people are all lumped together. Not everyone under 25 s a good driver, nor are they all bad; not everyone over 65 is a good driver, nor are they all bad. Carolyn43

10:56am Sun 8 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Ginny nz wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?
All overweight people do over eat.

No calories = no fat

too many calories = fat

Anything else is ****.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!![/p][/quote]And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?[/p][/quote]All overweight people do over eat. No calories = no fat too many calories = fat Anything else is ****. scrumpyjack

11:33am Sun 8 Dec 13

speedy231278 says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up.

As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this.

Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time>
Yes, but statistically they are also likely to have help from the bank of mum and dad to pay their huge premiums!
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.[/p][/quote]so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time>[/p][/quote]Yes, but statistically they are also likely to have help from the bank of mum and dad to pay their huge premiums! speedy231278

12:55pm Sun 8 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
If I thought rtery69 was related to me
I would stick him in a bag
climb to the top of the twin sails bridge
and chuck him in the ******* bay.
Cant even spell me fecking name right :)
What else is a gentleman supposed to do
with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest.
It was a joke
I wont throw you in the water george
sorry I scared the life out of you
I only said it jokingly
to shut you up
I am sorry.
happy Christmas.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: If I thought rtery69 was related to me I would stick him in a bag climb to the top of the twin sails bridge and chuck him in the ******* bay.[/p][/quote]Cant even spell me fecking name right :)[/p][/quote]What else is a gentleman supposed to do with a foul mouthed annoying short legged little pest.[/p][/quote]It was a joke I wont throw you in the water george sorry I scared the life out of you I only said it jokingly to shut you up I am sorry. happy Christmas. nickynoodah

1:50pm Sun 8 Dec 13

ragj195 says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company
how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old
you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!!
What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money
the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud
What a load of boubles ,
First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user.
and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes.
So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up.

As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this.

Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time>
You get bad young drivers and bad old drivers but your claim the "oldies are best" is simply wrong. A quote from the Department of Transport website.

""Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group.""
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.[/p][/quote]so your average 17year old has a good enough income to pay £2000 car insurance do they ?? market forces say the young driver can afford more than the old driver .. haha very funny they HAVE to pay £2000 because that's then cost of wrapping a car round a tree or hitting a lamp post with a lot of mates in the car.. I don't think I have read such a load of tosh from Rag J in a long time>[/p][/quote]You get bad young drivers and bad old drivers but your claim the "oldies are best" is simply wrong. A quote from the Department of Transport website. ""Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group."" ragj195

6:15pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Carolyn43 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Ginny nz wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?
All overweight people do over eat.

No calories = no fat

too many calories = fat

Anything else is ****.
Yes, doctor. When did you get your medical qualifications?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!![/p][/quote]And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?[/p][/quote]All overweight people do over eat. No calories = no fat too many calories = fat Anything else is ****.[/p][/quote]Yes, doctor. When did you get your medical qualifications? Carolyn43

8:10pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Peroni says...

We need a re test facility of say over 70s .
When the local rag says miracle escape ........do they mean for the driver or for the rest of the population around here ! Ok glad they survived ,but why does it take a knock like that to pull them to the senses that they are too bloody old to drive !!
At least no other member of the public was injured this time around !!
Geriatrics have no place behind the wheel of a car on the road ....end off....
We need a re test facility of say over 70s . When the local rag says miracle escape ........do they mean for the driver or for the rest of the population around here ! Ok glad they survived ,but why does it take a knock like that to pull them to the senses that they are too bloody old to drive !! At least no other member of the public was injured this time around !! Geriatrics have no place behind the wheel of a car on the road ....end off.... Peroni

9:14pm Sun 8 Dec 13

nickynoodah says...

Get well soon Roma
ignore the bedsit lodgers and georges that are against you
you are a great lady
god bless
Get well soon Roma ignore the bedsit lodgers and georges that are against you you are a great lady god bless nickynoodah

10:51pm Sun 8 Dec 13

MrTaylor says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time.
Of course they have, how do you think the operators stopped the lift when they saw that the idiot had driven through the barrier. And for the info to other posters, with all the safety mechanisms in place, the bridge would not lift if the barriers were not closed.
You have definitive proof about the latter, I presume? You know for certain that no failure occurred which somehow allowed the bridge to start lifting in the event that it was not the case this driver simply ploughed blindly through the gate and on to potential oblivion?
They can see the bridge from the control room
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Surely they have CCTV on the bridge or is that not working some of the time.[/p][/quote]Of course they have, how do you think the operators stopped the lift when they saw that the idiot had driven through the barrier. And for the info to other posters, with all the safety mechanisms in place, the bridge would not lift if the barriers were not closed.[/p][/quote]You have definitive proof about the latter, I presume? You know for certain that no failure occurred which somehow allowed the bridge to start lifting in the event that it was not the case this driver simply ploughed blindly through the gate and on to potential oblivion?[/p][/quote]They can see the bridge from the control room MrTaylor

11:04am Mon 9 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
Ginny nz wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!!
And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?
All overweight people do over eat. No calories = no fat too many calories = fat Anything else is ****.
Yes, doctor. When did you get your medical qualifications?
How come there are no fat anorexic's, no fat prisoners in concentration camps?

Bascially people who are deprived of food either voluntarily or otherwise lose weight.

I don't have a qualification in astro physics but I know the sun will pop up as usual tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginny nz[/bold] wrote: Maybe it would be better if elderly drivers ACTUALLY sat a test to see if they are fit to drive , rather than tick boxes that they obviously lie about because they don 't want to lose their independence . These old people could cause the death of a young person because of ther stubborness !!!!![/p][/quote]And young people could cause the death of an old person through reckless driving. Each of us is an individual. I get fed up with this grouping people together - all old people shouldn't drive; all overweight people overeat; all young people have no respect, etc. But back to this incident. So the car ploughed through the barrier, yet it was repaired and able to be used less than 5 hours later. So what's made of? Playdough?[/p][/quote]All overweight people do over eat. No calories = no fat too many calories = fat Anything else is ****.[/p][/quote]Yes, doctor. When did you get your medical qualifications?[/p][/quote]How come there are no fat anorexic's, no fat prisoners in concentration camps? Bascially people who are deprived of food either voluntarily or otherwise lose weight. I don't have a qualification in astro physics but I know the sun will pop up as usual tomorrow. scrumpyjack

12:30pm Mon 9 Dec 13

FNS-man says...

ragj195 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
A few things:

-accidents per mile isn't necessarily a great statistic, as it treats all accidents the same. A fatal crash and clipping someone's bumper aren't the same thing. Being terribly unscientific, I'd hazard a guess that a lot higher proportion of the oldies' crashes are low-speed shunts, compared to high speed crashes for youngsters. The high speed crashes are the ones where people get hurt, and which cost more money.

-profit margins at insurers are pretty thin, and the premiums reflect the risks involved. I think a more likely explanation for a lower premium for older people that doesn't reflect the risk when they are out on the road is that they will drive less than a younger person.
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.[/p][/quote]A few things: -accidents per mile isn't necessarily a great statistic, as it treats all accidents the same. A fatal crash and clipping someone's bumper aren't the same thing. Being terribly unscientific, I'd hazard a guess that a lot higher proportion of the oldies' crashes are low-speed shunts, compared to high speed crashes for youngsters. The high speed crashes are the ones where people get hurt, and which cost more money. -profit margins at insurers are pretty thin, and the premiums reflect the risks involved. I think a more likely explanation for a lower premium for older people that doesn't reflect the risk when they are out on the road is that they will drive less than a younger person. FNS-man

12:35pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Bournefre says...

Chris the plumber where are you getting your information from? You seem willing to dismiss information given by an insurance company for the over 50s and Department for Transport statistics as "rubbish", "a load of old tosh" and "a load of boubles" while at the same time keeping quiet about the source of your theory.
You didn't just make it all up yourself did you?
Chris the plumber where are you getting your information from? You seem willing to dismiss information given by an insurance company for the over 50s and Department for Transport statistics as "rubbish", "a load of old tosh" and "a load of boubles" while at the same time keeping quiet about the source of your theory. You didn't just make it all up yourself did you? Bournefre

2:01pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

E=MC2

Automatic + old person = death trap
E=MC2 Automatic + old person = death trap Dorset Logic

2:34pm Mon 9 Dec 13

ragj195 says...

FNS-man wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best !
Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.
so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.
Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.
A few things:

-accidents per mile isn't necessarily a great statistic, as it treats all accidents the same. A fatal crash and clipping someone's bumper aren't the same thing. Being terribly unscientific, I'd hazard a guess that a lot higher proportion of the oldies' crashes are low-speed shunts, compared to high speed crashes for youngsters. The high speed crashes are the ones where people get hurt, and which cost more money.

-profit margins at insurers are pretty thin, and the premiums reflect the risks involved. I think a more likely explanation for a lower premium for older people that doesn't reflect the risk when they are out on the road is that they will drive less than a younger person.
Totally agree that the fact they drive less is also a reasonable explanation to why premiums are low.

I find in puzzling that Chris The Plumber is the first to speak up about road safety and the lowering of speed limits. However, when people suggest that steps should be put in place to **** to competency of elderly drivers. An age group that statistics show are a high risk, he dismisses the comments as a "load of old tosh".
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: again Muscl Iffman is talking rubbish just ask your insurance company how much to insure a 20 year old against a 60 year old you will see why I get comp insurance for less than £170 a year and my son who is 26 pays over £1000 for the same car !!! What ever you say about older drivers when it come the paying out money the oldies are best ![/p][/quote]Younger drivers pay more because they're statistically more likely to exaggerate a claim. Nothing to do with being more likely to have an accident.[/p][/quote]so one insurance quote is relative to how likely you are to commit fraud What a load of boubles , First of all it not that younger drivers are likely to commit fraud its because they are more likely to kill them selves or some other innocent road user. and apart from pretending to have whiplash there is little chance of bumping up a motor claim as they need independent quotes. So we are back to older drivers are best.. as I am sure deep down you know that !! and one day if you are lucky and get old you too might get cheap insurance.[/p][/quote]Why are you ignoring the statistics on what age group is more likely to have an accident per a km driven? Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group. Do your own research before telling people they are talking rubbish. If you still think you're right then try posting some proper facts rather than making things up. As for using insurance premiums as some sort of guide to the safety of an age group. Don't you think that's pretty ignorant? The reason why insurance premiums get lower for the elderly is because market forces won't allow any increase. If the premiums rose to reflect the risk then the driver would simply not pay it as the car is often not a necessity for many people in their 80's and 90's. Do you think an 85 years old would pay £1000 per year? No, they wouldn't, and the insurance companies know this. Compare that to some new drivers I know who are happy to pay 20% of their salary on their premiums just so they can drive their own car.[/p][/quote]A few things: -accidents per mile isn't necessarily a great statistic, as it treats all accidents the same. A fatal crash and clipping someone's bumper aren't the same thing. Being terribly unscientific, I'd hazard a guess that a lot higher proportion of the oldies' crashes are low-speed shunts, compared to high speed crashes for youngsters. The high speed crashes are the ones where people get hurt, and which cost more money. -profit margins at insurers are pretty thin, and the premiums reflect the risks involved. I think a more likely explanation for a lower premium for older people that doesn't reflect the risk when they are out on the road is that they will drive less than a younger person.[/p][/quote]Totally agree that the fact they drive less is also a reasonable explanation to why premiums are low. I find in puzzling that Chris The Plumber is the first to speak up about road safety and the lowering of speed limits. However, when people suggest that steps should be put in place to **** to competency of elderly drivers. An age group that statistics show are a high risk, he dismisses the comments as a "load of old tosh". ragj195

5:57pm Mon 9 Dec 13

GAHmusic says...

Yeeehaaaa, it's just them good ole boys again :-)
Yeeehaaaa, it's just them good ole boys again :-) GAHmusic

2:21am Wed 11 Dec 13

Blob01 says...

muscliffman wrote:
Blob01 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.
Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there?
Maybe after a certain age reactions are a little slower, but regardless of that the facts clearly confirm it is younger people whose mental condition is the least suited to driving - impulsive, reckless, irresponsible......a

ll well proven as far more dangerous on the road than being just a bit doddery!

('deteriorate' for info.)
Maybe so, but the same could be said for any aged driver, a persons age bears no relevance to their attitude towards driving, you are either cautious and considerate or your not, regardless of your age and it's
not just a case of being a bit doddery hesitation, slower reactions, vision, health, confusion all play a part. My argument is simply that a person of 65/70 could well have gone 50+ years behind the wheel without a single reassessment and a lot can change in that time, there isn't a single other licence that would allow that period of time to lapse before a reassessment takes place. Surely it makes sense to reassess all drivers at certain intervals in life?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blob01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: So much talk about re-tests what ridiculous suggestions.[/p][/quote]Please explain clearly why this is a ridiculous suggestion? It is medical fact that senses and reactions deteriate with age. If you are still considered a competent driver then there is nothing to lose is there?[/p][/quote]Maybe after a certain age reactions are a little slower, but regardless of that the facts clearly confirm it is younger people whose mental condition is the least suited to driving - impulsive, reckless, irresponsible......a ll well proven as far more dangerous on the road than being just a bit doddery! ('deteriorate' for info.)[/p][/quote]Maybe so, but the same could be said for any aged driver, a persons age bears no relevance to their attitude towards driving, you are either cautious and considerate or your not, regardless of your age and it's not just a case of being a bit doddery hesitation, slower reactions, vision, health, confusion all play a part. My argument is simply that a person of 65/70 could well have gone 50+ years behind the wheel without a single reassessment and a lot can change in that time, there isn't a single other licence that would allow that period of time to lapse before a reassessment takes place. Surely it makes sense to reassess all drivers at certain intervals in life? Blob01

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree