Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

186 replies

escapingtothecountry · 08/05/2019 11:46

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 you need this on the back of your car you shouldn’t be driving?
OP posts:
clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 10:38

Those overwhelmingly most likely to have accidents are teenagers.

clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 10:41

And about half of kids who die as passengers in car accidemts were not strapped in.
This thread is all about peples prejudices and nothing to do with what the research and stats actually show.

NunoGoncalves · 09/05/2019 10:54

Re-testing would be almost completely pointless. As Clairmcnam points out, most accidents are caused by teenagers. After that men in their 20s, then men in their 30s, etc. etc.

Most accidents are not caused by people not knowing how to drive. And most "bad" drivers would be perfectly capable of driving properly for the sake of a test and would easily pass.

The cause of most crashes is people choosing to drive too fast, impatiently, angrily, etc. Taking risks they don't need to. That or being momentarily distracted by the stereo, the kids, a cigarette falling on your lap, etc, none of which would occur during a test either.

bananamonkey · 09/05/2019 10:57

I think I’ve spotted a gap in the market for “Live, Laugh, Drive” signs copywrites

Flobochin · 09/05/2019 11:02

I find the worse drivers are those driving very small cars.

Damntheman · 09/05/2019 11:16

Grin Flo in Norway the worst are the Tesla, BMW and Audi drivers :D By FAR!

LaMarschallin · 09/05/2019 11:16

Most accidents are not caused by people not knowing how to drive. And most "bad" drivers would be perfectly capable of driving properly for the sake of a test and would easily pass

Sadly that's true of many people. Boy racers, as some call them, may well put on an act.
Those with pathology such as dementia couldn't. So it may still be worth testing people on a regular basis.

Damntheman · 09/05/2019 11:17

I wouldn't say retesting would be pointless Nuno. Retesting would re-enforce knowledge perhaps forgotten or left to the side as well as teaching new knowledge and recommendations. Would it reduce accident rates though? Maybe. Would it stop wankers behaving like wankers? Probably not, they seem particularly determined types.

clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 11:18

Statistically those driving sports cars are most likely to have an accident.

clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 11:23

Retesting would make little or no difference to accident rates.
What happens is not based on people's prejudices, but actual stats and research.
People 70-80 years old have the same number of accidents as middle-aged people.
To reduce accidents and fatalities you have to get teenage drivers to drive more responsibly.
If you were serious about reducing accidents we would increase the minimum driving age to 21.

Alsohuman · 09/05/2019 11:26

I wouldn’t mind retesting at all but it seems pretty pointless for people with an unblemished driving record like my husband who passed his test two weeks after his 17th birthday and has been driving for 45 years with no accidents and one speeding ticket. Maybe there should be some indication that a retest is needed.

adreamofspring · 09/05/2019 11:26

I just think it’s sad that anyone needs to spell this out. Age is irrelevant.

The pedestrian crossing that I use to walk my kids to school is plagued with people that beep impatiently or try and nip round - all ages. I have to teach my kids to make sure no motorcyclist is trying to squeeze through too.

I’m an experienced, under 40, cautious, polite driver. I was shell shocked when I moved to London 20 years ago when people would undertake and get irate at what was normal driving in rural Suffolk. Which sign should I get?

LaMarschallin · 09/05/2019 11:40

Maybe there should be some indication that a retest is needed

Sometimes that's too late.

LaMarschallin · 09/05/2019 11:43

I wouldn’t mind retesting at all but it seems pretty pointless for people with an unblemished driving record like my husband

Ah. I see. You wouldn't mind it at all except for you and yours?

NoSauce · 09/05/2019 11:43

I would assume it means things like, ‘don’t get frustrated at a petrol station if I am taking a while to get out of my car’, not ‘I’m going to kill your child with my slow reactions’

Now that is a weird interpretation of the sticker in the back of the car if ever there was one!

How many people behind this driver will follow him/her into the petrol station?

Damntheman · 09/05/2019 11:45

Claire, your statistics are very interesting! Thank you.

Sirzy · 09/05/2019 11:54

Touch wood in nearly twenty years of driving I haven’t had any accidents or tickets. However I am not daft enough to think that makes me a perfect driver and would be more than happy with a system whereby all drivers have to regularly do a basic retest. Bad habits easily slip in and that could help refocus

pigsDOfly · 09/05/2019 11:56

Speaking as an older driver (70), I can't imagine why anyone should feel the need to stick a bloody great thing in their back window warning other drivers that their driving might not be up to scratch and everyone around them needs to give them allowance for that. It's ridiculous.

If and when that time comes, it's time to stop driving as you're clearly not confident enough in your own ability to continue.

I've never understood the point of 'baby on board' stickers tbh. This one just beggars belief.

clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 11:57

Would you be happy with a minimum driving age of 21?

Alsohuman · 09/05/2019 12:05

I’d be happy for me to be retested, my driving record is far from faultless! I said people LIKE my husband is those whose driving record doesn’t indicate a need for retesting. Jesus, there’s some crap comprehension and logic on here sometimes.

Damntheman · 09/05/2019 12:10

I'd be alright with a minimum age of 21 if it got the accident statistics down.

clairemcnam · 09/05/2019 12:10

Retesting will make no difference, except to increase driving examiners earnings. That is why it does not happen.

bamboofibre · 09/05/2019 12:13

YANBU

LaMarschallin · 09/05/2019 12:30

Alsohuman

I’d be happy for me to be retested, my driving record is far from faultless! I said people LIKE my husband is those whose driving record doesn’t indicate a need for retesting. Jesus, there’s some crap comprehension and logic on here sometimes.

I'm assuming that's a reply to me. My apologies if I'm wrong.
So, do you mean nobody should be retested unless their driving record is "far from faultless" like yours? Otherwise, those "LIKE my husband is those whose driving record doesn’t indicate a need for retesting" shouldn't be retested?

Why shouldn't everyone be retested?
Why is that "crap comprehension and logic"?

If, as I suggested, drivers are retested, say, every five years, there's a lot of time for things to have changed to people's health/perception/whatever.
Even in your husband's case.

TheRedBarrows · 09/05/2019 12:42

"TheRedBarrows but surely the older drivers are buying the signs?"

I wonder. More likely relatives giving 'joke' presents, like most of the pointless tat that people seem to find humorous.

I haven't actually seen one of these signs, I'm not sure many have been sold.

And people don't display these sort of stupid signs for serious purposes, do they? Alongside the Princess On Board etc....

None of them scream 'razor sharp wit and fast reactions' to me Wink