You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Periodically* i need to recertify all of my work place competencies, if I don't pass them, I don't work until I can pass them. The only competency I don't need to is my driving license (and my chainsaw)
That BBC link above quotes folk in their 80s saying well I passed at 17.... Grandfather rights shouldn't apply.
I feel we should all be subject to routine reassessment of our driving. Even making it every 10 years would be better than nothing.
*All my tickets have differing durations between reassessment.
I think we're all pretty much in agreement. Is there anyone against the idea?
If nothing else, aside from retesting it can't hurt just to have a refresher. I passed my test in 1990, back then mini-roundabouts were a pretty new idea. I still see older drivers today that clearly don't have a clue what to do with them and will blindly sit there until everyone else has gone or died from old age. They likely took a test 35+ years ago and haven't looked at The Highway Code ever since, and it changes.
Too many folk continue to drive when they should not be. We need mandatory retesting for everyone.
The first statement is no doubt true, but does not support the second statement, a silly knee jerk reaction.
What we need is a system where when people are diagnosed or suspected of dementia there is mandatory reporting to DVLC and those people, the higher risk ones, are subject to more rigorous requirements for testing or doctors approval.
The solution should be focused on the problem, not a random idea plucked out of thin air, otherwise we end up with ideas like “Cyclists kill too many pedestrians. We need mandatory registration and insurance for bikes”
What we need is a system where when people are diagnosed or suspected of dementia there is mandatory reporting to DVLC and those people, the higher risk ones, are subject to more rigorous requirements for testing or doctors approval.
AIUI it's already mandatory, it's just that people don't, not to mention that there are plenty of people about with cognitive impairment but no diagnosis.
I'm in no way against it - and infact redid my test for other reasons a few years back
BUT
has anyone tried booking a test......
has anyone tried booking a test……
Yes - in 1990. 🙂
The wait time back then was something like six weeks. I don't imagine that's changed for the better. I expect also there will be something of a postcode lottery.
but does not support the second statement, a silly knee jerk reaction.
AIUI it’s already mandatory, it’s just that people don’t, not to mention that there are plenty of people about with cognitive impairment but no diagnosis.
Universal retesting is the only way to get everyone, the old, the demented, the complacent, the reckless
Universal retesting is the only way to get everyone, the old, the demented, the complacent, the reckless
Absolutely. Not sure why anyone would be opposed to the idea (assuming we had the infrastructure to actually do it).
The only other way I can see would be reactionary, like we do already with speeding courses. (I think we said this like 4 pages ago.) The issue there though is it could be too late if it's after a 'big one.' But it'd be a step in the right direction at least. Maybe tie it in with licence renewal?
Folk don't object to retesting, as long as it's somebody else that's being retested. Just choose any group or demographic that's not you.
I would have everyone retested. at 10 year intervals maybe reducing over 70
Yes – in 1990.
The wait time back then was something like six weeks. I don’t imagine that’s changed for the better. I expect also there will be something of a postcode lottery.
try 6 months these days . My test was pre-covid - and i just went for the next available test in Scotland option - i ended up in linlithgow abter 2 months - and with the number of on/off ramps and round about to and from the duellers round there .... i can see why people going for their first test were not keen to use it ....
Trying to get a test in any sizable town or city its wild
I would have everyone retested. at 10 year intervals maybe reducing over 70
its a nice idea in utopia ... .but the implementation of it is challenging ...
testing is a captive predictable market with a huge wait list and yet they are still shutting test centres and backlogs are huge.....
testing is a captive predictable market with a huge wait list and yet they are still shutting test centres and backlogs are huge…..
It's as if no one knows what they are doing....
It’s as if no one knows what they are doing….
well it is government run so its kinda par for the course.
Much like many of the other government run agencies.....
I had a demand from the tax man to do a self assessment this year .... after many paperwork and back and forth .... i was due them 10 british pounds.
Someone wasted more than the 10 quid gained sending me emails , letters and doing the verifying and subsequent relevant paperwork.
Those who advocate retesting:
- how much are you prepared to pay for your retest?
- if you think that is a price worth paying, have you spent the same amount on any “refresher” type training?
Does anyone know of another country that has periodic retests? Does it reduce accidents?
How does retesting stop you passing the test and driving like a maniac?
I would do complusory dash cams and random review of the memory card, you could at least see how people normally drove.
You could then do focused retesting or prosecution.
Those who advocate retesting:
– how much are you prepared to pay for your retest?
A fair price - whatever it is now?
– if you think that is a price worth paying, have you spent the same amount on any “refresher” type training?
I had some free refresher training on motorbikes from a mate who is an advanced rider - could do with more
Does anyone know of another country that has periodic retests?
I thought both the US and Aus did? Not at all sure
Does it reduce accidents?
NO idea but logically getting rid of rubbish drivers and making complacent ones think about their driving should do
How does retesting stop you passing the test and driving like a maniac?
We're going round in circles now, we've done this one too. A retest isn't going to stop people wilfully driving like a tit. Extra training might.
There's an old joke, a copper pulls over a bloke for speeding. The guy says something like "but there were people overtaking me!" The cop asks whether he ever goes fishing. "Why, yes" he replies. "Do you ever catch all the fish?"
It would require a lot more driving examiners to cover mandatory retesting. My wife is a new driver learner. She applied for a test date in September. After waiting a few months for a test date (remote test centre not full time) she has a date in early January.
They likely took a test 35+ years ago and haven’t looked at The Highway Code ever since, and it changes.
I passed my test in 1990
So 34 years ago then? Time to pick up that Highway Code... 😉
A fair price – whatever it is now?
theory test - £23
weekday practical talent £62
evening or weekend practical test £75
obviously if you don’t actually own a car you’ll need to add rental cost to that too.
seems fair enough to me. Small price to pay for continuing with a license - less than a tenner a year.
try 6 months these days . My test was pre-covid – and i just went for the next available test in Scotland option – i ended up in linlithgow abter 2 months – and with the number of on/off ramps and round about to and from the duellers round there …. i can see why people going for their first test were not keen to use it ….
Trying to get a test in any sizable town or city its wild
just as well geography wasn’t part of the test!
I'm sure that was funnier in your head but you'll need to explain it
There's currently an inhumane assessment process for the disabled and terminally/mwntally unwell administered by ATOS. We could stop that system and have the GP's refer anyone that presents as cognitively impaired to them for assessment and removal of driving licence.
Everbody wins!
I don’t believe the test availability problem is entirely one of capacity: it’s reported that there’s also a crooked little cottage industry reserving tests in others’ names and then reselling the bookings into the resulting overheated market at a profit.
Reported by whom?
all over media.
all over media.
Pretty sure Watchdog covered it a few months ago, and with kids at driving test age it's been talked about a few times.
No idea quite how it works though.
@crazy-legs that's some interesting reporting there. Almost like the car was to blame.
theory test – £23
weekday practical talent £62
evening or weekend practical test £75
obviously if you don’t actually own a car you’ll need to add rental cost to that too.
@poly if you look at theory plus practical that's not much more than the cost of a passport which also has a 10 year validity.
They should have compulsory eye tests every two years.
The eye tests can also detect tumours, etc.
on a sideline, vehicle number plates should be much larger.
the vehicles registration should also be emblazoned across the vehicles roof (to aid identification by police helicopters).
I’m sure that was funnier in your head but you’ll need to explain it
because there is no test centre in Linlithgow (and hasn’t been in at least the last 30 years) - your description of multiple roundabout, ramps and dual cw it also doesn’t sound like Linlithgow. Sounds more like Livingston, I think there is a truck but not car test centre there.
@poly if you look at theory plus practical that’s not much more than the cost of a passport which also has a 10 year validity.
But the sheriff in the FAI would likely suggest that a test every 10 yrs is too infrequent for the sort of issue that he was considering. I wonder how many people would fail a practical test that would pass the theory test (including hazard perception) with perhaps a simple vision test added on?
I thought both the US and Aus did? Not at all sure
tj - I can’t find any country who make you retake your practical test periodically. The US seems particularly unlikely given their relationship with driving. What they may do is require a medical, but I can’t see anywhere that needs an actual driving test.
all over media.
Seems convincing.
on a sideline, vehicle number plates should be much larger.
Why?
the vehicles registration should also be emblazoned across the vehicles roof (to aid identification by police helicopters).
I watch quite a lot of these 'police interceptor' type videos when there's nowt better to do. I've yet to see one where the helicopter has failed to identify a vehicle.
because there is no test centre in Linlithgow (and hasn’t been in at least the last 30 years) – your description of multiple roundabout, ramps and dual cw it also doesn’t sound like Linlithgow. Sounds more like Livingston
Glad you pointed out a 6 mile difference. I was 130 miles away from home I'll not quibble over 6 miles. Especially as I did start the day in Linlithgow with the instructor.
Universal retesting is the only way to get everyone, the old, the demented, the complacent, the reckless
Theres no point, society is happy to have 5ish road related deaths a day which will come out of the usual 1,600ish people that die every day.
The numbers just don’t work to make it an issue because in numbers land it’s not an issue and the current testing system is fine.
If there was wholesale carnage on the roads then obvs it would be a good idea.
There is wholesale carnage on the roads - its just as you say become normalised.
There is wholesale carnage on the roads – its just as you say become normalised.
The FB page for the area my Mum lives has, alongside all the anti-LTN tirades started sticking the boot into anyone reporting car crashes on the area social media pages. Couple of days ago a car flattened a few traffic lights, the driver did a runner. Someone posted a pic of the aftermath, a comment about how the hell can this much chaos be caused in a 20mph zone.
And the FB is full of "well we don't know what happened, the driver could have had a medical episode, maybe they swerved to avoid a horde of Lime bikers who were all jumping the lights and coming out of nowhere and then got out to chase one of them..."
Any incident involving a cyclist (no matter how minor, how much of a "near miss") generates immediate calls for all cyclists to be banned.
Car crashes... "oh well it's just an accident..."
There is wholesale carnage on the roads – its just as you say become normalised.
Statistically roads are getting safer. Not as quickly as we would all like, and probably not driven as much by driver behaviour as it should be but "wholesale carnage" doesn't relate to most people's experience. I think you remain more likely to die on the roads than be murdered - but that is not the public perception. I'm sceptical that retests actually fix that - in fact I imagine that "cycle haters" would be even more enranged that we don't pay road tax / have insurance / pass a test etc, if they had to sit a retest and cyclists didn't. There are things I would change if I was SoS for Transport, but mandatory retests for everyone, every 10 years wouldn't be on my priority list - insurers seem to believe drivers get better with experience at least until they start to get quite old.
Theres no point, society is happy to have 5ish road related deaths a day
Unless you can convincingly show that retests (or any other major shake up) materially changes that number then you are wasting your time.
if trains or anything else was killing and maiming so many folk then the outcry would be huge
Unless you can convincingly show that retests (or any other major shake up) materially changes that number then you are wasting your time.
The problem is that "the number" is focusing on deaths. 5 deaths a day on average has become normalised - as TJ says above, if 5 people a day were being killed on trains or trams or on building sites, there'd be absolute outcry, the whole industry shut down.
But, alongside the deaths, is just the rest of the massive headache for everyone. Even a relatively simple "accident", a single vehicle collision where it goes off the road (the way the media report it, "the car left the road" as though it did so of it's own accord...), involves a police and ambulance response, maybe fire brigade to cut the driver free. Road is closed, massive disruption to everyone, recovery of the vehicle. Every one of those costs a minimum of £100,000 to attend, sort out, clear up and resolve and that's not counting the economic and environmental cost of congestion.
And in the case I linked to on the previous page (elderly driver crashed their car into a shop front on the high street), that lead to an air ambulance, road ambulances, multiple police vehicles, a complete closure of the high street (and the resulting loss of a day's takings for everyone), massive area wide traffic disruption including buses being diverted and one shop being left in ruins.
A death is calculated at about £1.2m on average I believe. From an economic point of view alone, that should be enough to be pushing for safer roads, even if they're currently some of the safest in Europe.
if trains or anything else was killing and maiming so many folk then the outcry would be huge
You ever been on a train that's struck a person on the line? I can assure you that whilst there are people who are concerned for the person or often their family, there are people who just want the train moving again to get to their destination. When I commuted it was sadly a fairly regular disruption and people would get angry with platform staff. I've been on a train that hit someone and was delayed for 2 hours - BTP eventually got on the train at the guard's request to deal with passengers shouting at him including one who told him "to move the ****ing train, if they cared what happened to their remains they wouldn't have been on a railway line". People are angry about safety until it inconvieneces them, then they are angry about elf'n'safety gone mad. You don't have to go that far back in history to find big train disasters - I don't think people were marching on parliament.
nope - and the situation you describe happens on the roads as well
Thats not my point tho - my point is that if anything else was causing so many deaths and maimings then serious steps would be taken. Driving deaths and injuries have become normalised in a way others are not
I don't think that's fair (and "carnage" is borderline hysterical).
If someone is killed on the roads, there is an investigation. If there is an atypical speed limit on a stretch of road, this is one likely reason. It's newsworthy, maybe not nationally unless it's a big one, but it'll certainly hit the local paper and TV reports. We're not just shrugging and going "oh well."
You've got millions of people travelling millions of miles day and night every day. Crucially, as opposed to trains and planes, these people are not professional drivers but just regular people. Vehicles cover 330 billion miles in GB per year.
It's inevitable that at some point, someone is going to **** up. Are you saying that in your life, in your career say, you've never thought "well, I ****ed that up"? If so, I don't believe you. How many people die on operating tables? So then we're into Risk Management 101 - what can we do to bring that number down, and what can we do to reduce the impact when something goes sideways?
i think focusing on stopping those without mot / insurance /tax / license from being on the road would be more beneficial than the mandatory retesting.
MIB suggest 1 million uninsured vehicles on the roads each year
719,000 untaxed vehicles
cant find numbers for licenses but in my county alone a couple of years ago - the local rag reports just under 2000 were caught without licence in one year .... and thats those caught .....
and the kicker 5.2million vehicles without MOT on the roads ....
and while i cant find the figures - im sure you will see a correlation between serious incidents and those that are willing to drive unlicensed and non roadworthy vehicles ....
of course with all that - borrowing a close match set of plates means that you avoid a majority of the current checks and have to do something obviously bad in earshot of a police car.
Oh yes - all that as well - along with no suspicion breathalyzer traps outside pubs, and black boxes / cameras in every car.
Put down 1984.
along with no suspicion breathalyzer traps outside pubs
not really much point in changing the law for no suspicion - leaving a pub in itself might be reasonable grounds for suspicion, but certainly since the cops have the power to stop any vehicle at any time and talk to the driver then if you have been drinking they are very likely to be able to augment their knowledge that you left a pub car park with how you respond / behave / look / smell in order to reach a suspicion. If there’s people the police think might be drink drivers not getting stopped and breathylzed it’s almost certainly a resource issue not a legislative powers one.
I mean like in Aus - a roadblock and breathalyse everyone. Thats not possible under UK law
Trail rat - surely you have nothign to fear from enforcement of driving law? I mean you never break the law do you? 😉
Mass breath testing seems like a waste of resources. I never ever drink at all if I am going to drive, the police are welcome to test me but I can't why it would be useful.
Trail rat – surely you have nothign to fear from enforcement of driving law? I mean you never break the law do you
Au contare I have cameras front and back capturing inside as well. With GPS and g meters.
It's still a world apart from what your suggesting.
I still think your ideas are straight out of 1984.
Especially as I've seen the black boxes on some of our work trucks doing 130mph in the north sea...... And you trusting our government to run an automated standards system off the back of it.
Bruce - because that way 1) they will catch a load more drunk drivers and 2) it will act as a deterrent - the deterrent effect is with the risk of being caught not the severity of the sentence. People still drink and drive a lot
Trail rat - thats what I am suggesting every car has 🙂
I mean like in Aus – a roadblock and breathalyse everyone. Thats not possible under UK law
Saw 2 or 3 of those when I was out in Aus. We didn't get pulled over (I was a passenger in a car driven by my Australian friend) but saw quite a few people being signalled off into the "test area".
Needs that over here. Every time the police do any of these "blitz" operations they'll invariably find half a dozen uninsured cars, a couple of DQ'd drivers, some unsafe vehicles....
Trail rat – thats what I am suggesting every car has ?
You said black box. A black box in a car is a system monitored by a third party. That shit can get in the sea because the systems are largely crap.
Needs that over here. Every time the police do any of these “blitz” operations they’ll invariably find half a dozen uninsured cars, a couple of DQ’d drivers, some unsafe vehicles….
Seen this in action in NZ. They work. Good idea.
Only issue is. These days it would be all over Facebook like a flash.
I mean like in Aus – a roadblock and breathalyse everyone. Thats not possible under UK law
but that’s not what you said…
random road blocks to check vehicle condition and driver details are legal. In that process a large number of people who have been drink driving (which is a small proportion of people on the road) will look/sound/smell like they might have been drinking and give rise to a reason for a breathylser test. Just the perception that you might get stopped would probably be enough to reduce the number of people who would chance one for the road. In reality drink driving contributes only a fairly small percentage to the KSI numbers because campaigns and social consequences are so severe.
nothing stopping those sort of roadblocks today except for resources; as is so often the case we don’t need new laws just more resource / focus on the existing laws.
Estimates for 2021 show that between 240 and 280 people were killed in collisions in Great Britain where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit, with a central estimate of 260 deaths.
Out of 1,624 fatalities,
I'd say that was rather more than a small %
nothing stopping those sort of roadblocks today except for resources; as is so often the case we don’t need new laws just more resource / focus on the existing laws.
Yep it’s just the political will to enforce laws as opposed to the obsession to create more laws.
road. In reality drink driving contributes only a fairly small percentage to the KSI numbers because campaigns and social consequences are so severe.
Back in the 70’s a beer and driving was an accepted thing,in the last 20-30 years most people find it pretty unacceptable.
So in in the 2040’s most people should be happy driving at 20 mph 🙂
I’d say that was rather more than a small %
but if you want to be pedantic about what an arbitrary phrase like small % means you’ll need to:
- use the same statistic I did (KSI not fatalities)
- actually use the same specific phrase “fairly small”
- understand the sort of percentages attributed to other causative factors
If you scroll far enough down the link you’ll see it’s <7% (and more like 5% if you include all injuries rather than serious ones). Is that a fairly small number? Obviously it’s subjective - there are other causative factors which are appreciably bigger. IIRC driver not looking properly is the biggest cause.
but people are shite at understanding the significance of percentages. Consider the reverse - >93% of KSI accidents happen when everyone driving was sober*. 95% ie. 19/20 accidents resulting in any injury or death are “sober”. You are suggesting we need to randomly stop and breathalyze everyone for the 1/20 - I’m saying I think the resource could be better spent on the rest and likely further reduce drink (and drug) driving as a result. Drug driving is a growing issue - but drug tests are slow an orders of magnitude more expensive than breathalysers so make no sense to deploy at random.
Random road blocks are very resource intensive - the old Strathclyde force used to essentially do it during Christmas period (“voluntary” testing!). They usually had 2-3 vehicles and 6 officers - in modern policing terms that is probably the whole of the traffic division in an evening - all at one location which needs to be practical and safe from a road block perspective - habitual drink drivers will soon learn the likely spots and how to avoid them - especially with social media / waze etc.
we all know that mobile phones are a real issue - do you want officers tackling that or stopping people who they don’t suspect of drink driving for random tests? I’m a realist so whilst I’d like to reduce the fairly small percentage of serious road traffic accidents where drink is a factor, I’d much rather we put the same sort of effort into higher frequency problems.
*under the drink drive limit.
surely you have nothign to fear
This is a really dangerous path to be going down, comrade.
We're already one of the most survielled nations in the world. Meanwhile, elsewhere on STW people are asking how they can stop Facebook tracking them, turn off Google's location history, whether it's worth paying $55/year for a search engine, how they'd never have an Alexa device because it's spying on them...
Everyone has something to fear. I don't want the Stasi kicking my door in because I briefly did 31 in a 30 once. A right to privacy is a basic human right, I don't want the government - with it's long history of robust data hygiene and totally never leaving discs and drives on the train - recording me picking my nose.
Technological solutions won't work because those most in need of it will ignore it. There's a little prick round here on some ratty offroad motorbike. Straight-through exhaust, usually 2-up, balaclavas, no helmets, no licence plate, no road sense and presumably no anything else. He came round the road the other day as I was driving up it, wrong side of the road so coming at me head-on, then hopped up onto the pavement narrowly missing pedestrians. Do you reckon a mandatory black box scheme would resolve that?
but people are shite at understanding the significance of percentages. Consider the reverse – >93% of KSI accidents happen when everyone driving was sober*.
Conclusion: it's statistically far safer to get pissed before driving.
cou8gar - did you not see the emoji? It was a joke!
I am surprised tho that insurance companies have not pushed cameras more
I am surprised tho that insurance companies have not pushed cameras more
Probably because they realise that they will incriminate their insured as much as they will clear them.
Death of the 50:50
It’s inevitable that at some point, someone is going to * up. Are you saying that in your life, in your career say, you’ve never thought “well, I *ed that up”? If so, I don’t believe you. How many people die on operating tables? So then we’re into Risk Management 101 – what can we do to bring that number down, and what can we do to reduce the impact when something goes sideways?
Perhaps, but in a slightly indirect way the acceptable residual risks of even risky industries like oil and gas is calculated at 10% of the risk of dying on your driving commute to work.
but people are shite at understanding the significance of percentages
A good one to demonstrate that is the lifetime risk of either being seriously injured or seriously injuring someone (i.e. being in a KSI crash).
30,000 KSI crashes per year, 30million drivers, 1in1000 people per year.
Drive from 18-80 that's 62 years.
99.9%^62 = 93.9%
There's a 1in17 chance that you will either be seriously injured or seriously injure someone else.
It's good because if you work in a company that asks for a "safety moment" at the start of meetings it's fairly likely there'll be ~17 people in the room (or if it's a big presentation to ~200 people then the stat for killing someone or being killed is ~1in200).
Very similar situation to ayjaydoubleyou.
My grandfather learnt to drive when he was a regular in the army, right at the end of the Second World War. He didn’t take a standard driving test but amongst other things was a driver in the army. Went on as a civilian to secure an advanced driving licence, become a driving instructor and own his own driving school. Had he been alive now he would be 97.
As he died at 71 - luckily he didn’t get to the age where he lost his driving competence* - where I would have been tasked to take his car away.
*I have to say he was probably one of the most skilled, considerate drivers I have experienced.
Fairly common over here to close a handful of pinch point routes out of major cities and breathalyse/check pretty much everyone in the approach to (and tail off) from Christmas and new year. A random selection of insurance, MOT, clear test, bald/illegal tyres. Some get the whole lot.
Same on the motorways sometimes. Close the whole thing for 30-45 minutes and check ~25% of the vehicles coming through.
I've probably been stopped 3 or 4 times a year, a lot more before i had kids and was likely to be driving out of town at closing time. Not so much now.
Usually one or two of the side roads near each check point with a line of impounded/parked cars along one side and a line of taxis along the other. Taxi home with your pink slip, taxi back either with a sober driver (who will be breathalysed before driving) or the following morning. Then a 2-3 month wait for your court date and punishment. Anything that can't be driven will be collected by the police and taken to an impound until you can collect and take directly to a repair shop. Or prove it's now legal to drive.
Fairly common over here to close a handful of pinch point routes out of major cities and breathalyse/check pretty much everyone in the approach to (and tail off) from Christmas and new year. A random selection of insurance, MOT, clear test, bald/illegal tyres. Some get the whole lot.
I'd be all in favour of that kind of approach, year round. Make the risk of being caught higher and people will have to sort their shit out - may require additional resources in the current cash strapped UK.
The Police in Nottingham used to sometimes blitz the bus lanes in the evening rush hour - a couple of locations they had space to pull in large numbers of vehicles. You'd get pulled for the bus lane offence, then they check over the car and driver while they had them.
I’d be all in favour of that kind of approach, year round.
Sorry, yes, they do it year round, but not as comprehensively. Midsummer is also a big one.
FWIW i went to Oslo a few weeks ago and they were diverting everyone off the motorway through a check point/weighbridge and stopping every ~10th car. I was on a bus so went straight through.
– may require additional resources in the current cash strapped UK.
Think they get extra police in from neighbouring divisions. And some civilian staff getting overtime to fill in the forms/move the vehicles around/administer stuff.
We locally have had an incident where an 86 year old has flattened a cast iron street clock, nearly running people over while doing it. I've just been shown the video and the person is clearly 'foot to the floor', only stopped by the clock. Very new car.
It made me think of my older 2012 Volvo with 'city assist' which would have stopped the car dead under 30mph if it sensed anything ahead, including people.
I've had so many hire cars recently with posh speed and lane assist etc. But these electronic devices only work above 30 and protect the car passengers on motorway or a-roads.
Yet many of the crashes and issues cited on this thread are sub 30mph...
Should we mandate more 'city speed' protection devices?
My Toyota brakes at City speed if you get to close to something.
My 2019 Seat has the AEB working from between 10 to 210 kph according to Euro NCAP.