It seems most people agree with most of us on here that the drink drive limit is about right where it is :

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/consumer/survey-results/daily/2025/08/15/10dc4/2

But I will not hold my breath for the government to listen to the people and read the stats from Scotland. No, they'll be more bothered about virtue signalling and "being seen to do something", anything (even if it is a waste of time and effort). Bit like the Covid madness really !

6 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

... Back in the 70s the government ran education adverts...

Yes, they were fronted by a certain DJ I'm sure if they had the chance of a do-over, they'd have chosen someone else 😁

On 8/19/2025 at 3:21 PM, unofix said:

Nobody knows, they couldn't read the number plate 🤣

Like this one ! :

AS stated elsewhere, they must get a copper driving behind them reasonably often, what are the coppers thinking ?

Surely it's an easy "cop" for them anyway !!

Too busy arresting one of the funniest scriptwriters (Father Ted - Magic!)with FIVE officers.

2 hours ago, Paulkp said:

Too busy arresting one of the funniest scriptwriters (Father Ted - Magic!)with FIVE officers.

I see the head of the Met is now calling for the law to be changed or clarified:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o

Sorry to continue dragging this off the thread subject but what has happened to Linehan is appalling, extremely worrying. Not just the freedom of speech angle*, which would be bad enough, but this comment from the Met Police chief :

In his statement on Wednesday, Sir Mark said the decision to arrest Linehan "was made within existing legislation - which dictates that a threat to punch someone from a protected group could be an offence".

Note this does not say :

In his statement on Wednesday, Sir Mark said the decision to arrest Linehan "was made within existing legislation - which dictates that a threat to punch someone could be an offence" (which would be OK, though probably over egging handbags internet threats that are essentially meaningless posturing).

It specifically says :

In his statement on Wednesday, Sir Mark said the decision to arrest Linehan "was made within existing legislation - which dictates that a threat to punch someone from a protected group could be an offence".

Anyone who is not appalled by that comment can't understand what he has just said.
What he has said is that some people get more protection from the law than other people.

* doesn't everyone's Mum tell them "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and "If your friend told you to jump off a cliff would you do it ?"

1 hour ago, Justin Smith said:

Anyone who is not appalled by that comment can't understand what he has just said.
What he has said is that some people get more protection from the law than other people.

Makes you wonder if he really understood what he was actually saying. I trust that will be picked up - keep a look out in the papers tomorrow.

Unless Met officers act autonomously, someone senior must have told them to do it, and regarded that as more of a priority than burglary, shoplifting, car theft, etc, etc. Bit of an attempt at blame shifting going on there.

A couple of years back when I renewed my licence after turning 80 I was asked to go and get a compulsory eyetest at my local Specsavers free of charge. Bit unusual. Anyway all good sight still good enough to drive without glasses.

17 minutes ago, jsk said:

I was asked to go and get a compulsory eyetest at my local Specsavers free of charge. Bit unusual. 

Were you told a reason for that, John? I know of people who are known to have a condition which could affect vision (e.g. glaucoma) being asked to be have one, which is obviously fair enough.

3 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Were you told a reason for that, John?

Yes, his doctor owns the local branch of Specsavers 🤣

Way back in 1991 my mam was always asking me to tell her what the road signs said!! She always said...''oh i missed that one''.......Then a few miles later she then again said....''what sign was that our ian''........I kept asking my mam if she can read signs, she kept saying yes so tested her, I made her pull up in front of a road sign and asked her to read off the lot, she couldn't and what shocked me more was when she said she'd not been able to read number plates or road signs for 10 years but she can see cars and people ok!!

My mam went to a opticians and they got her straight in, he asked her what's the reason and my mam was clamming up so I told him straight, my mam didn't like that, the optician wasn't impressed she'd been driving 10 years with uncorrected sight, the bloke got out a pack of cards all with things on them, he said can you point out the hazards on these cards please, she couldn't identify one single hazard, but can see the cars in the pictures, bloke said ''did you drive here''.......... ''of course I did'' ...replied my mam, bloke then blew a gasket and demanded her car keys off her!!! He said in every hazard photo there are children located in every one and you never saw a single one and you are a dangerous driver.

She finally admitted what she was doing was wrong and her ignorance would have killed someone eventually.

She got her new glasses and couldn't believe how bad her eyes was.

Yes Roger 'optical myasthenia gravis'. About three years ago one of my eyelids drooped. To cut cut a long story short in one day it was from Dr, hospital optical A&E to specialist. She decided it was unusual for only one eye to droop and that none of my facial muscles were affected. Prescribed pills notified DVLA. Next day before getting pills droop had gone. Never really thought I had it and have gone months at a time without pills and it never comes back. Specialist won't have it and insist I still take pills.

 

 

1 hour ago, jsk said:

Yes Roger 'optical myasthenia gravis'. 

Not of heard of that one! But it figures if DVLA had been notified of it.

There are some very dangerous people on the roads. My mother wouldn't have an eyesight test because she expected the optician to notify DVLA of her substandard vision and she would lose her licence. She was probably driving for more than 6 years with defective vision, whilst self declaring that everything was ok for her licence renewal.  Fortunately she no longer has a car and didn't have an accident when she was driving. I noticed it when she asked me what the lane markings were when she was travelling in my car, if she couldn't read 2 metre high numbers painted on the road she couldn't have been able to see much at all. Terrifying! 

18 hours ago, pcaouolte said:

There are some very dangerous people on the roads. My mother wouldn't have an eyesight test because she expected the optician to notify DVLA of her substandard vision and she would lose her licence. She was probably driving for more than 6 years with defective vision, whilst self declaring that everything was ok for her licence renewal.  Fortunately she no longer has a car and didn't have an accident when she was driving. I noticed it when she asked me what the lane markings were when she was travelling in my car, if she couldn't read 2 metre high numbers painted on the road she couldn't have been able to see much at all. Terrifying! 

Was her poor eye sight as result of incorrect specs, or an untreatable issue with her eyes ?

34 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

Was her poor eye sight as result of incorrect specs, or an untreatable issue with her eyes ?

Incorrect specs due to her not being willing to visit an optician in case they couldn't correct her vision and reported her to the DVLA.

Fear of being reported to the DVLA and losing her licence prevented her from getting the correct spectacles which would probably have allowed her to drive safely.

The logic of some obstinate old people defies belief.

2 hours ago, pcaouolte said:

Incorrect specs due to her not being willing to visit an optician in case they couldn't correct her vision and reported her to the DVLA.

Fear of being reported to the DVLA and losing her licence prevented her from getting the correct spectacles which would probably have allowed her to drive safely.

The logic of some obstinate old people defies belief.

And all for nothing anyway !

On 9/3/2025 at 11:56 AM, Justin Smith said:

Like this one ! :

AS stated elsewhere, they must get a copper driving behind them reasonably often, what are the coppers thinking ?

Surely it's an easy "cop" for them anyway !!

As we drove through Sheff the other day we were overtaken (speeding and on the inside, obviously) by a black BMW with a reg plate which made the one on the Porsche look positively legible. It really was almost unreadable, and his front side windows were illegally dark, I know as I was interested to see the driver as he sped past but it was impossible. So his car had two illegalities (possibly three as his exhaust was puthering smoke out, poss a remapped fuel injection system ? almost certainly not insurance cleared or meeting pollution standards ?) and yet, apparently, he's never stopped by the police. Surely one of the great mysteries of life ?
I'd bet £100 of anyone's money that if I accidentally drove with a slightly bald tyre I'd get stopped within 10 yards of leaving my house !

9 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

we were overtaken (speeding and on the inside,

How were you overtaken on the inside if you had pulled back into the left hand lane after your overtaking manoeuvre?

59 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

How were you overtaken on the inside

You may think there is an insufficient gap to which you could change lanes, but others may just barge their way through.

Perhaps you have not driven recently around M25, M1, and A1(M), where undertaking is reaching epidemic proportions, as is driving over crosshatching bordered with solid white lines.

4 hours ago, Paulkp said:

Perhaps you have not driven recently around M25, M1, and A1(M)

I drive all of those roads quite regularly. The standard of driving is often appalling. Lots of people sit in the middle lane when the left hand lane is completely clear, it's about time they invented cameras to catch people doing that. Even when they put signs on the overhead gantries saying "Do not hog the middle lane" people carry on oblivious.

I agree that some drivers will barge their way through when there is not room to move back to the left safely.

Other drivers seem determined not to be overtaken and when you pull out to pass them they increase their speed to exactly match yours. They also do this when you have moved over a lane to allow them to join the motorway safely, then they try not to allow you back into the left hand lane. 🙄

On 9/14/2025 at 8:17 AM, pcaouolte said:

How were you overtaken on the inside if you had pulled back into the left hand lane after your overtaking manoeuvre?

We were in the right hand lane because a couple of hundred yards up the road we were due to turn right. He was one of those drivers changing lanes every minute or so in some pathetic attempt to gain one car length, he must have changed lanes from one moving line of traffic into/out of the other at least 4X in the time I could see him which is very poor driving in my book. But, more to the point we were doing the speed limit (30mph) anyway, so the moron was no only overtaking us on the inside but speeding as well.

On 9/14/2025 at 2:12 PM, pcaouolte said:

I drive all of those roads quite regularly. The standard of driving is often appalling. Lots of people sit in the middle lane when the left hand lane is completely clear, it's about time they invented cameras to catch people doing that. Even when they put signs on the overhead gantries saying "Do not hog the middle lane" people carry on oblivious.

I agree that some drivers will barge their way through when there is not room to move back to the left safely.

Other drivers seem determined not to be overtaken and when you pull out to pass them they increase their speed to exactly match yours. They also do this when you have moved over a lane to allow them to join the motorway safely, then they try not to allow you back into the left hand lane. 🙄

That whole thing about middle lane driving is not so simple though is it ? It is not unknown, but quite rare, to find a vehicle in the middle lane with nothing in the inside lane as far as the eye can see. Far more common is there is a truck in the inside every few hundred yards as far as the eye can see.
The other thing is if I have just overtaken someone but we are driving past a junction I wait till we are past the junction to pull back into the inside lane in case a vehicle wants to pull onto the motorway at that junction. It's courtesy plus it may avoid me having to pull back out again to let them onto the motorway.
I actually prefer driving in the inside lane, I find it more relaxing and I like having the hard shoulder right next to me if I have a problem (assuming there is a soddin' hard shoulder....), but I am not going to be farting about changing lanes into it only to have to change lanes back out of it within about 10 seconds. That benefits nobody apart from increasing the chance of an accident from all those lane changes. 

Basically, to me, it depends on the speed you're driving at :
In the middle lane at 50mph = Dangerous
In the middle lane at 60mph = Discourteous
In the middle lane at 70mph = Irrelevant (because, by definition, anyone passing you is exceeding the speed limit and therefore breaking the law......)

Obviously I`m not saying that drivers should sit permanently in the middle lane, but it's a balancing act between limiting lane changing and returning to the inside lane, which usually has the slowest moving vehicles in it.

I can`t wait to see how quickly someone comes on here selectively quoting the Highway Code, so I`ll do it for them :
264 You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear (my italics).
261 You MUST NOT exceed 70 mph, or the maximum speed limit permitted for your vehicle.

should / should not = "advisory wording"
MUST / MUST NOT = "if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

On 9/14/2025 at 9:22 AM, Paulkp said:

You may think there is an insufficient gap to which you could change lanes, but others may just barge their way through.

Perhaps you have not driven recently around M25, M1, and A1(M), where undertaking is reaching epidemic proportions, as is driving over crosshatching bordered with solid white lines.

Undertaking is bad driving, I try not to ever do it.
Quite why some people do that as they are in the process of turning off the motorway is even harder to fathom, what's the point of it ? Plus it is even more dangerous because how do they know the car they are undertaking (often speeding whilst doing it...) in the middle lane isn't going to suddenly remember they should be turning off here.....

On 8/14/2025 at 5:02 PM, Alan G H said:

Just got to cut the old one in half & send it back now. 

If you have any HGV or motorbike categories on it, it is better to keep it. DVLA have been known to miss these off the replacement. They then claim to have no proof that the driver ever passed them. 

 

As for new traffic laws, if only they would enforce existing laws on electric bikes and scooters. 

They police seem to have given up on it nowadays. I am sure a car driver would be found at fault if they hit one.