If you need this on the back of your car you shouldn’t be driving?

[escapingtothecountry]

Just that really.I saw it on a car last week (dash cam picture, before someone asks) Am I required to be patient when your reactions are so slow that you can’t break fast enough and hit my car, or worse my child?

If it really were necessary to have a sign to alert emergency services that a child might be around, who would simply rely on a relatively small sticker in a window? Surely you'd have something much more obvious and less likely to get lost in a crash?

Or maybe you would rely on the fact that emergency services check very thoroughly?

I find it amusing that people think the emergency services, who train for years and to a very high standard, are out there relying on £5 Halfords “little prince on board” signs to do their jobs

IF the emergency services really needed something to bring their attention to the fact that their may be a child in the car then I am sure they would have a national register of cars which may be carrying children. Not rely on a sign!

However let’s not forget that these people are very well trained in actually looking at the scene of an accident.

And the fact that with modern child seats the chances of a child being thrown from a car are thankfully very tiny so really all they need to do is check in the car!

Baby on board signs were valid 40 years ago, when carrycots were plonked on the seat and could wind up anywhere in a crash. Not any more.

I saw one the other day naming nanny grandad AND the names of grandchildren on board. 🙄

Does this not just make anyone else think why the person felt the need for the sign? They do definitely make a difference. My grandad has one and before he did, he constantly had people driving up his arse, getting angry at him for driving at the speed limit or for him not nipping into small gaps in traffic. He got a sign and since he's had it up people haven't acted like such twats (as much).
I find that there are so, so many angry drivers and us sitting here saying "oh well, they shouldn't be driving!" doesn't change that. Small measures, like a sign if it makes you feel better, and making sure you drive properly and do everything within your power to avoid an accident. That doesn't stop other arseholes from being arseholes.

Am I the only person who thinks that it was put there for a bit of a giggle by the grandkids?

And no you don't need to be able to see out the back window. Trucks and vans don't have them.

Same goes for those twits with 'baby onboard' signs blocking their rear vision.

There is no respect for elders these days, many of whom we owe a huge thanks for peace in our time.

Flobochin

So you think the fact that someone could have fought in a war and still be driving (unlikely) gives them a free pass to do so even if they’re not safe to do so?
You’re either safe to drive or not. There’s absolutely nothing additional that matters.
It’s nothing to do with respect for the elderly.

@Pardonwhat no that's not what I'm saying.

But I am saying g respect your elders, we owe them a huge amount.

I know that many young drivers are far worse than older more experienced drivers.

Everyone is on such a hurry these days, aggressiveness towards other drivers. Slowly we are seeing a breakdown in society as we once knew it. No respect for anyone or anything.

This post is an example, having a go at older drivers. On another thread, someone having a go at cyclists.

Let's have respect, tolerance, kindness towards our fellow man.

The world would've a happier place.

Flobochin

Younger drivers do tend to have more accidents yes, but they’re also the group who are newest to the road. If people could only start driving in their 50s then they’d be the group with most crashes.
I don’t think having respect for the elderly and believing that if you’re reaction times are slow enough to need this sign that you shouldn’t be driving, are related.

I personally think young men are the worse drivers, young teens and early 20s who think they are the dog bollocks and that there car is a penis extension.

Part of the problem is so much of the choice of your safe to drive is left to the individual rather than there being a firm “you are no longer safe to drive” - it was 4 years after my dad had stopped driving because he realised it wasn’t safe before a doctor told him he couldn’t and even then it was a case of “you shouldn’t drive” no form of official reporting to the dvla done so easily ignored if you so wish.

But I believe it’s daft that the only time your vision is checked is reading a registration plate on your test. I would like to see if compulsory to send a copy of your prescription (and if needed proof glasses/contacts have been purchased) to the dvla every two years.

I don't think it's true to say that 50 year old new drivers would have the most crashes. A lot of the issue with the young drivers is maturity. I learned to drive at 31 alongside a class of 17 year olds, the teacher was very clear in the maturity issue.

Their not there!

In the absence of a baby, what about a sign saying

"No baby on board
Feel free to ram"

I expect its a joke, poor driver has probably just turned 60 and is gamely using it for a while having been given it by a friend along with a Gardeners World subscription, knitting wool and needles and forms for a Bus Pass...guess how I know this????

Who needs a sticker? The universal code for a dithery driver who should be treated with caution is either the hat or box of tissues on the back shelf of the Micra.

The ageism on this thread really is shocking. And I think you’ve nailed it @Saffy.

I live a town that a lot of people choose to retire to. It is fairly affluent so people can afford to keep driving as long as possible. It is notorious for being full of frankly scary elderly drivers. If I reported everyone who wasn't capable of driving safely I'd be doing at least one a week and 90% of them would be 80+ years old.

Obviously no-one who is unsafe should be on the road but sometimes all that is needed is a little patience with someone who might be a little hesitant at roundabouts and junctions.Also it isn't necessary to be confident on a busy motorway to be capable of driving into a small town you are familiar with. Yes, busses are needed to go with the bus passes. It's sad that it's considered "distasteful" to have to assimilate older people into society. If you don't want them to be a nuisance asking for lifts but don't want to be patient with a slightly slow driver in front what would you like them to do. IMO it's aggressive impatient drivers causing problems. Obviously there is a point at which some people become dangerous but no harm in making allowances for less confident drivers.

no harm in making allowances for less confident drivers

But they could be any age from 17 to 97. Being a confident driver isn't about age.

But they could be any age from 17 to 97. Being a confident driver isn't about age.

So would anyone object to a repeat driving test every 5 years or so being made legal?

A bit of a bore, I know, but if people passed it they could point out to the ageists that they were wrong.

Sorry. I meant made compulsory.

I think having to renew a license regularly is a smart idea. It's also a solid opportunity to learn the new driving laws and guidelines that have come out since your original test. I would support it.