Tuesday 30 December 2008

UK government declares war on the old foe!

That's right, motorists, we're coming for you:

Drivers will have to declare every 10 years whether they are medically able to get behind the wheel, according to proposals to be set out early in the new year.

For the first time, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will issue a series of minimum physical and mental requirements motorists must fulfil including eyesight performance and reaction times.

Tests, costing up to £80, will be offered to drivers to check whether they are fit to drive.

Anyone who chooses not to take the tests but declares themselves able to take to the roads will be committing a criminal offence if they fail to meet the established standards.


At first, anyway. After several well-publicised incidents of people getting their self-assessment wrong, a taxpayer-leeching quango will use government funds to pressure the government into making us all take the tests every 10 years turning it into a nice little earner.

(Tip of the hat to John Pickworth in the comments here for that one.)

But not content with this pointless cuntwaftery, we have this little doozy:

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.


Do you know what? I'm going to get one of these fucking things and drive everywhere in second gear. That will fuck their carbon emission shit right in the fucking eye. Interesting that cutting carbon emissions is right up there with saving lives, eh?

BBC, please go fuck yourself.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.


29%? Why not 28%? or 30%? Is this "29%" perhaps just a number that you pulled out of your arse that sounds like it's been calculated because 30% would be too convenient? Where is the proof that this will happen?

The device automatically slows a car down to within the limit for the road on which it is being driven.

But charity Safe Speed says the devices are dangerous because they encourage drivers to enter a "zombie mode".


I think it's fair to say that the average British driver is heading for a vegetative state already.

Ministers are planning to help councils draw up digital maps with details of the legal speed on every road.

The speed-limiting devices will then use satellite positioning to check a vehicle's location and when its speed exceeds the limit, power will be reduced and the brakes applied if necessary.


Yeah, like when you're overtaking someone just before entering a town and suddenly half-way through the overtake your car stops. Fucking cunts. Is this possibly another soundbite-driven government initiative that sounds vaguely like it's based on a bad misunderstanding of what technology can do? Just like all their fucking databases?

The Commission for Integrated Transport and the Motorists' Forum, which both advise the government, are calling on ministers to promote a wide introduction of the system.


Well, I can tell you know, mate, that if I ever get my hands on the greasy pole of power, the very first quangoes that will get their marching orders will be you two groups of mongtarded fucking cockwafts.

John Lewis, from the Motorists' Forum, told BBC Breakfast he believed the devices would help drivers obey limits and therefore keep their licences.


John, I'd like to point out that the Archhelmet of Cuntbuggery believes that there is a sky fairy who created the world. That does not fucking make it so. Can I further point out that you are a nasty, totalitarian piece of shit who thinks he knows better than anyone else what is right and what is wrong?

"But we believe that the system should be a voluntary system, that the drivers decide if they have fitted to their car or not, and that they decide if they want to over-ride the speed limit - that should be their choice," he said.


At first, anyway. After several well-publicised incidents, etc., etc.

There would also be a positive impact on emissions and fuel consumption, he added.


Not if I drive everywhere in second gear, you cock-biting fucktard.

Jon York, fleet manager for British Gas, whose vans are already limited to 70mph, told BBC Radio 5 Live the system had reduced road incidents for the company.


Prove it, baby.

But he said the introduction of technology had to be combined with safety education.

"It does aid road safety, it does reduce incidents, but it is part of a wide-ranging number of initiatives within British Gas and one of those is driver training because you have to change people's behaviour."

But Claire Armstrong, from the road safety charity Safe Speed, said that the devices could be dangerous.

She said truck drivers using speed-limiting devices had been shown to "go into fatigue mode or zombie mode" and stopped paying attention to the road.

"That makes it highly dangerous in those scenarios. So you've taken the responsibility away from the driver and that is not [good] for road safety."

Derek Charters, from the Motor Industry Research Association, believes limiting speed automatically could cause accidents.

"The last thing you need is one car to be overtaking and then pull back in, in front of the cars in front, because that braking event will then cause everybody to start to slow down, which will then compress the traffic, which then causes an incident."

Motoring journalist Quentin Wilson said he also believed taking away driver control was a "really, really bad thing".

"Remotely policing the roads from satellites in the sky - I would worry about it an awful lot."


I'm vaguely surprised that children weren't mentioned in this cockwaffle. You know, saving kids' lives and all.

I think I'm going to go out for a drive.

While I'm still allowed to.

22 comments:

Pogo said...

I've posted a comment similar to this on the HYS site, but I have no great confidence that it will survivie moderation... However:

According to the government's own figures (STATS19 analysis for the geeky) only 6% of accidents have "exceeding the speed limit" as a causative factor, so how the fuck are they going to get a 29% reduction by stopping cars exceeding the posted limit?

Sums isn't the BBC or government's strong point methinks.

Anonymous said...

"I'm going to get one of these fucking things and drive everywhere in second gear. That will fuck their carbon emission shit right in the fucking eye."

Also your clutch...!

"Sums isn't the BBC or government's strong point methinks."

A good look at the economy proves that for the latter, while the BBC's biggest Christmas draw wasn't any of their expensive 'talents', but a couple of lumps of plastecene....

(Turning word: suckmand Oooh, err!)

Pogo said...

And another thing...

The speed-limiting devices will then use satellite positioning to check a vehicle's location and when its speed exceeds the limit, power will be reduced and the brakes applied if necessary.

Ever driven on an urban motorway, the M6 through sunny Brum for instance? It crosses and is crossed by dozens of ordinary roads with speed limits of 30 or 40; does this mean that you'll be able to do 70 on the "near motorway" bits or, more likely, there will be massive shunts under every motorway bridge as cars automatically stamp on the anchors to get down to 30.

If it comes to pass, buy shares in auto repair companies.

Anonymous said...

And I should point out that I have only, ever, once needed to use speed (briefly) rather than braking to get out of a potentially bad motoring incident.

But if I'd been limited, I probably wouldn't be typing this now....

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Actually, I reckon this is just another initiative to show that the government is keen to support the pointless EUSSR Galileo satnav replacement.

@Pogo: Jesus ... can you imagine all the ways this can go wrong?

Pogo said...

@obo...

Not all, but quite a lot! :-)

Obnoxio The Clown said...

@Pogo: how about faulty units that kick in in places where the speed limit is actually higher but leave you free to speed in town centres?

That could be fun. And what would the legal consequences be if you accepted one and it misfunctioned and you got bust for speeding, despite being able to prove that it was on and functioning (you presumed) correctly at the time?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Pogo makes excellent points.

Don't we read heartwarming stories in the papers every month or two about drivers using sat-nav being sent into lakes and rivers, under low bridges, the wrong way down one way streets etc? The technology is pretty good but nowhere near good enough for something as intrusive as this.

Anonymous said...

I am buying presents for my nephew, aged five. One candidate is an 'ant farm', whose glass walls allow the spectator to observe every action of every ant. You can even disrupt their lives and make them burrow in different directions, build new bridges and so on.

Scum like ComInTran and Lewis want us to be the ants. Their genitalia aroused to a purplish hue by the idea of controlling us and spying on us, they empty their Bartholin's glands and prostates frequently by coming up with 'initiatives'.

There is a rumour that a man obtains an erection when he is hanged. I'd like to see this put to the test.

Prodicus said...

Wondered why I had become a zombie. Now I know. My car has cruise control which I use in low speed areas with cameras. Keeps me legal but I am begining to notice its terrible effect on my little grey cells - what's left of them.

I dare not turn the satnav on as I travel along the river cos it would take me into the water, wouldn't it? What with me being mentally challenged thanks to the eeeeeeevil cruise control.

Thank God for a Labour government and all its wankos. I mean quangos. People like me are a danger to ourselves and it's only our betters who keep us out of serious trouble.

I think the government should grasp the nettle and ban cars completely. Then they can issue everyone with Segways, plus wheelbarrows for those outside Tesco's delivery area.

I may go into politics with that one.

Longrider said...

On the matter of minimum standards of medical fitness, this is no more than extending the principle of minimum standards of competence. I don't have a huge problem with it. In principle In the context of the current control freaks, I see the concept being subject to huge abuse.

The idea of speed limiters is just plain fucking dangerous. My bike's throttle has got me out of trouble on several occasions - drivers on motorways just don't fucking look before moving into the next lane. Hitting the brakes or changing lanes is invariably not an option - cracking open the throttle is. As with JuliaM - if it was limited, I wouldn't be here.

The Refuser said...

Longrider if the EU get their way you wont get to use a bike. Far too dangerous for mere mortals according to these control freaks. As for speed controls. Well Obnoxio hits the nail on the head. The only justification is to support the poxy Galileo satellite fiasco.

Anonymous said...

Just more control freakery and another excuse to track vehicles with Galileo.

Jon said...

As long as they don't interfere with my Pashley trike and its handy front basket, I couldn't care less.

Anonymous said...

So, now we really see what they are up to - minimum health standards, eyesight etc - the words Aryan and Race spring to mind! Why dont these eejits go the whole hog and dig up old Adolf to give them some leadership - oh, they wouldn't cos they would be the first set of pricks up against the wall!!

Anonymous said...

And here is another spiffing tax idea for 2009 - BP, Shell and all the others could stop collecting the petrol tax for the greedy government by simply insisting that HMR&C install their own tills in the petrol stations to collect their tax. So, you get 50 quids worth at the pump, go into the shop and pay 15 quid to BP for the petrol then go to the tax till to pay 35 quid for fuck all! This would have two effects it would educate the public exactly how much they give to these greedy politicians and it would result in no petrol tax cos who in their right mind would go to the tax till?The 35 quid saved could buy you 7 packets of fags (or 14 if you go to the alternative 'shops') or it could go to health insurance if you are one of these jogging pricks who dont pay for the tre cost of their healthy life style!

John Pickworth said...

We've all witnessed those spontaneous pandemics of brake-lights on the motorways... where two speed limited trucks (one travelling at 69.7 MPH, the other at 69.9 MPH) take 5 miles to overtake and which results in everyone else having to use the one remaining lane.

Imagine what this is going to look like in the future when you have everything else on the motorway similarly speed crippled?

As for the 29% crap. Do countries that have higher speed limits automatically have 29% more accidents? Do those places with lower limits have 29% fewer? Don't bother looking it up, we all know the answer.

John Pickworth said...


fooming2 said...


"And here is another spiffing tax idea for 200..."

Good idea ;-)

Actually, given the Government is so keen for retailers to list the extras, the APR and other conditions/small print etc. Shouldn't every bill be required by law to itemise ALL the taxes being paid? It always pisses me off to the extreme that I have to pay tax on my Government mandated car insurance!

Dr Evil said...

If I had had a speed limiter on my car when some bastard mong truck driver of a left hand drive foreign waggon tried to side swipe me on the A14 as I was overtaking him I probably wouldn't be typing this little message. It's all bollox. If they do this they will try road pricing too. I really hate this government. Their contempt for the motorist is incredible.

Anonymous said...

Of course the system would not be targeted by terrorists. Can you imagine the economic carnage if they managed to set a whole city's speed limit to '0' for even an hour? Actually, this will probably be achieved by the system all on its own! Then the police (and bailiffs?) can be issued with individual car immobilisers, nice and safe - no more car chases). This will in time make a whole new crime of 'DWIMing' - Driving Without Immobiliser. I don't even want to think about the insurance cost of criving a car without one fitted.

Anonymous said...

"Do countries that have higher speed limits automatically have 29% more accidents?"

Of course not: because if the speed limits were higher, people driving at higher speeds would be perfectly safe because they would be driving below the speed limit.

Since drivers are perfectly safe so long as they drive below the speed limit and murderous baby-killing scum if they go even 1mph faster than that, the simple solution to ending road deaths in the UK is to raise all speed limits to 300mph.

banned said...

My Vectras by the second fuel economy dial shows that I am driving most planet friendly at between 50 and 60mph, anything less than that and especially 20mph or lower is raping the earth of her precious resources.

If The Commission for Integrated Transport could explain to me why, 10 years after we were promised a joined up public transport network, it is still impossible to buy a connecting coach ticket at a train station ticket office ( as has been the norm in Europe for decades ) then I just might pay attention to anything else they may have to say ( though probably not ).