- Seven in ten (71%) drivers surveyed have dangerously poor knowledge when it comes to winter stopping distances
- Two thirds (66%) of drivers believe others do not leave enough space to stop safely
- More than half of drivers questioned (54%) think other drivers travel too fast in poor weather conditions
A new study carried out on behalf of Brake and Direct Line is highlighting the risks too many drivers are taking in bad weather. The survey released on the 8th January 2016, reveals 71% of drivers questioned do not know how much longer it will take their vehicle to stop in icy conditions. This means they could be putting other road users, and themselves, at risk by underestimating the distance.
11% of drivers think the stopping distance is twice as long in icy weather, a third think it’s four times as long and 27% think it should be five times as long. Just 23% of drivers know that the actual figure is up to 10 times as long, with 6% being even more cautious and believing it is up to 20 times as long.
That means, that on a fine day, if you are travelling at 30 mph and need to brake immediately it will take you 23 meters to stop, in icy conditions it could take up to 230 meters – that’s the length of two-full sized football pitches and, of course, the faster you are travelling, the further that distance could be.
The 1966 legislation made it compulsory for all new cars to have seatbelt fittings. This simple change has revolutionised the way that drivers and passengers look after their own safety when driving.
In a crash you are twice as likely to die if you don’t wear a seatbelt and the government’s THINK! campaign has played a crucial role in reminding people of the importance of this safety measure. For the past 10 years the number of people wearing seatbelts has consistently been above 90%, with a high of 98% of car drivers recorder wearing a seatbelt in 2014.
Drivers and passengers who fail to wear seatbelts in the front and back of vehicles are breaking the law and drivers caught without a seatbelt face on-the-spot fines of £100. If prosecuted, the maximum fine is £500.
According to research of over 1,146 consumers conducted by uSwitch.com, 26 percent of respondents said that they would not consider telematics insurance because of privacy concerns.
Of these, 62 percent felt that black box insurance was too ‘Big Brother’, and 37 percent said that they didn’t want to be monitored while driving. While just under half of those surveyed (45 percent) would consider installing a black box, over half (58 percent) incorrectly believed that telematics data is shared between insurers, and over a third (35 percent) thought telematics data could be used when applying for insurance.
On average, consumers would consider a telematics policy if net savings were at least £98 a year, with the 18-34 year olds requiring £173, and over 65 year olds wanting £72 of savings to be tempted by a black box.
Rod Jones, insurance expert at uSwitch.com said “Concerns around personal data are a major barrier to telematics adoption – in particular, how the data will be used and by whom.”
“It’s vital that the Government and the insurance industry addresses these concerns if the technology is going to take off.”
Teenagers could have to wait a year longer than currently before they are allowed to take their driving test.
The government is considering issuing only 12-month probationary licences at the age of 18 in a bid to cut accidents involving young motorists.
New drivers would also face a curfew between 22:00 and 05:00 unless a passenger aged over 30 was in the car.
It recommends a one-year “learner stage” beginning at 17, during which drivers would have to total at least 100 hours of daytime and 20 hours of night-time practice under supervision.
Learners can then take their test at 18 and, if they pass, will get a probationary licence and have to display a green “P” plate.
During this stage, drivers will face the curfew and all those under 30 will be banned from carrying any passengers also under 30.
After the 12-month probationary period, drivers will automatically graduate to a full licence and unrestricted driving.
Statistics show that more than a fifth of deaths on British roads in 2011 involved drivers aged 17-24.
Recent research conducted by a leading UK Insurer suggested that 40% of drivers have admitted that having a passenger in their vehicle is the main cause of them becoming distracted when driving.
Amazingly, 17% of drivers surveyed have said that due to the actions of their passengers, they have either suffered a road traffic accident or experienced a near miss.
The distraction for the driver usually comes from the back seat passengers. A commonly reported accident was where the driver was chatting to the rear seat passenger whilst looking in their rear view mirror, resulting in the driver colliding into the car in front.
In the battle of the sexes, men have confessed to being twice as likely as women to get distracted by a passenger, and admit to having suffered a bump whilst being distracted by their passenger.
September 20 | Motoring
It is estimated that 33% of fatal road accidents in the UK involve drivers and passengers that were not wearing their seat belt. It has been a legal requirement in the UK since 1983 to wear a belt, and for good reason. Without wearing a seat belt, you are endangering the lives of not only yourself but others around you, and leaving everyone exposed to the risk of serious injury.
In the event of a Road Traffic Accident, it is the person who is not wearing a belt that will suffer the most injury and usually end up causing severe injury to fellow occupants of the vehicle. The wearing of a seat belt is the most basic form of road safety equipment fitted in any vehicle. Vehicles today come with a whole host of safety features, however the tried and trusted seatbelt should always be used on any journey, no matter how small.
If you have suffered a non fault accident in the last three years, or were a passenger in any vehicle regardless of fault, you may be entitled to claim compensation.
To contact us quickly, simply click the large red button on our home page.
The Met Office has reported the wettest April in 2012 since records began over 100 years ago.
Although the rainfall was welcomed by farmers, it was not welcomed by Britain’s road users.
We have seen a marked increase in the number of road traffic accidents in April and in a majority of the claims reported we have noted that the inclement weather conditions played a large part.
Motorists were travelling too close and too fast behind the vehicle in front, often in the pouring rain resulting in the inevitable rear end collision, after the innocent driver had slowed down or come to a stop.
Research has shown there are approximately 400,000 rear-end bumps on the roads each year in the UK, accounting for one in four of all road traffic accidents.
Data from more than 200,000 accident claims in 2010 found that 27% of them occurred when one car hit another from behind. This is a 9% increase in the percentage of these types of accidents from 2009.
Many rear-end collisions result in whiplash for the occupants of the vehicle and these type of accidents account for 75% of all bodily injury claims.
Congestion means we often travel in slow moving traffic. Drivers get frustrated and drive a little too aggressively. This can cause them to bump the car in front.
On faster roads many drivers don’t leave enough space between themselves and the vehicle in front. If the car in front needs to break suddenly, it’s possible to go straight into the back of them.
The Ministry of Justice has reported record numbers of unauthorised claims management companies have been shut down within the last year.
Nearly 350 firms were closed down last year in comparison to 35 the year before – a ten-fold increase.
This follows the Ministry of Justice’s reforms including restructuring ‘no win, no fee’ deals to discourage needless and excessive litigation as well as reviewing the way advertising is used by claims management companies to attract business.
The 349 firms who had their licences taken away in 2010/11 were either found to be in breach of rules or failed to meet the regulator’s requirements for authorisation.
In the worst cases, the reasons for action included evidence of fraud, misleading marketing and aggressive sales techniques.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women, based on their gender. Continue Reading