[Mark07]

Following a recent Community discussion, I got thinking about what myths exist around driving.

This RAC article uncovers 13 motoring myths.

When I was a kid, my parents always told me that it was illegal to turn the internal car light on whilst driving, I'm pretty sure they were just trying to stop me messing with the buttons, but I find myself telling my child the same thing.

I was surprised to see that there is no law stating that you can't drive with headphones on... but it is not recommended.

• Were you told any motoring myths as a child?
• Where they any in the article that you weren't aware of?

[Drivingforfun]

Oh this is interesting!

A niche one I was told is, if you ever stop at the scene of a crash, never to offer the victims to sit down in your car. This was because if the fire service arrives they can deem the victim at risk of neck injury and have to be lifted out of the car, so they will cut your roof off

I learnt this is either massively hyped up out of proportion or one of those things that's probably happened once

[Mark07]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

[...] if you ever stop at the scene of a crash, never to offer the victims to sit down in your car. [...] the fire service [...] will cut your roof off

Interesting, I've never heard of that before. I bet that would be a unique call to the insurance company.

Me: The fire brigade cut my car in half.
Insurance: Oh no, were you involved in an incident?
Me: No.
Insurance: 😳

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

if you ever stop at the scene of a crash, never to offer the victims to sit down in your car.

This is along the same line as "Never offer first aid unless you are fully trained as you may be prosecuted for assault."

It's nonsense of course, so long as you are behaving "reasonably".

When I was younger, people would say (and believe) that they were better drivers after a few drinks.

There are still a lot of people who think that it is beneficial to change the oil in their [modern] cars every 5000 miles or even less.

[Drivingforfun]

@Santa

I wonder if you gave someone a few non-alcoholic drinks but they thought they were ordering alcohol, whether some sort of reverse placebo effect would in fact make them a better driver, as they might concentrate more to compensate for the supposed alcohol??

[Santa]

@Drivingforfun
You would need a thousand drivers to take part in a double-blind test to make a scientific evaluation. One group to be given a measured amount of alcohol, one to be given a similar but alcohol-free drink and a control group with no drink.

[Rolebama]

Extended warranties are worthwhile.

[TC1474]

A popular myth still going strong (n ot helped by the TV documentaries) is that it is illegal to undertake.

No it isn't. That piece of legislation was removed with the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic Act.

So many people (including some cops) will then state that it is illegal according to the Highway Code, but again this is false as the HC says should not, it does not say "Must Not" and if it was a legal matter then it would be supported by the relevant act and section.

This is why so many courts are now holding middle lane hoggers liable in crashes where they have been undertaken as they commit the offence of Careless driving, and in undertaking matters, the only offences available are careless (or in the worst cases) dangerous driving, but it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of driving fell well below that standard expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver and the act of undertaking on its own is insufficient.

However if the undertaking vehicle was travelling at serious excess speed and weaving from lane to lane, then the offence would be complete.

The other myth that many car drivers believe is that they think it is illegal for motorcycles to filter.

Again, total rubbish providing certain basic rules are complied with, but its very common when a car and bike collide where the bike was filtering for the car driver to blame the biker because he/she was filtering illegally and they are quite taken aback when they are told the facts of filtering.

So 2 common myths dispelled I hope?

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Extended warranties are worthwhile.

In general, I agree. Especially since the Consumer Rights Act 2015 often give better protection against unexpected costs.

That said, when I bought my current car back in 2015, I paid for an extended five-year warranty from Ford. My thought was that this is an expensive car (even secondhand) and has a lot of complicated electronics. I also subscribed to a service contract.

In 2017, I had the rear brake discs and pads replaced under the warranty, which would have cost more than the warranty cost - so win for me.

[Rolebama]

I have commented to a few friends over the years about how they cruise in the second or third lane on motorways, only to be met with variations of "I am in the 'fast' lane", when the nearside lane is empty.

[NMNeil]

@Santa
This guy bought a Range Rover, possibly the most unreliable car ever and bought an extended bumper to bumper 6 year warrant for $3900 (about 3000 quid) and it was worth every penny.

[Drivingforfun]

Originally Posted by Santa

This is along the same line as "Never offer first aid unless you are fully trained as you may be prosecuted for assault."

Totally offtopic but I often wondered if surgeons have to have some kind of license, seeing as they are sticking blades in people, or is it just generally accepted that they are permitted to do it using some kind of common sense test?

[Rolebama]

As far as I am aware, to become a doctor, (the first step to becoming a surgeon), means a 5/6 year course. Any Joe Public can be a first aider.
FWIW: I was the first aider at most of the places I worked between the time I left the Army until I retired. A British Red Cross Society course every year along with the occasional St John's Ambulance Brigade course. All because I qualified as a Medical Orderly whilst in the Army. 99.9% of which was plain common sense with a touch of anatomy thrown in.

[Drivingforfun]

@Rolebama

Yeah, that makes sense

I remember watching a film in which someone performed a tracheotomy-style operation using a biro pen ... I mentioned this to my Mum, a nurse, so, more qualified than first aid but still much less than a doctor ... she told me the scene wasn't totally far fetched and she could probably do it if needed in real life, but there'd be a good chance it wouldn't work. I wonder how that would go legally??

Totally far fetched and would never happen in the real world, I accept...!!

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

@Rolebama

Yeah, that makes sense

I remember watching a film in which someone performed a tracheotomy-style operation using a biro pen ... I mentioned this to my Mum, a nurse, so, more qualified than first aid but still much less than a doctor ... she told me the scene wasn't totally far fetched and she could probably do it if needed in real life, but there'd be a good chance it wouldn't work. I wonder how that would go legally??

Totally far fetched and would never happen in the real world, I accept...!!

I have actually seen that done at a few RTC's over the years and it worked.

Admittedly the person doing the procedure was a first aid instructor but it was carried out and the patient survived.

From a legal standpoint, all the law states is that provided the person administering the procedure did so in good faith, then no offence is committed regardless of the outcome.

But, the caveat is that it is possible that if a first aider carries out a procedure negligently a third party could be pursued for damages,.

This follows on that there is a potential liability for those who teach first aid if it is taught and then applied incorrectly.

I will add that in 45 + years of legal, (both enforcement and personal injury law) I have never come across anyone being prosecuted or sued for negligent first aid.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

Totally offtopic but I often wondered if surgeons have to have some kind of license, seeing as they are sticking blades in people, or is it just generally accepted that they are permitted to do it using some kind of common sense test?

There have been many cases where people have ended up in jail for "impersonating a doctor". That certificate they proudly display after six or more years of study is effectively a licence to give medical treatment.