Read an interesting article on A-express website, basically says that 1 in 4 deaths caused by dangerous driving are the fault of the under 20's & the safety body "BRAKE" wants to introduce certain limits on this age group.
h**p://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/57161/teen_clampdown_call.html
Personally think that with the ever increasingly powerful cars available these days certain limitations are probably a good idea, although I also think that anyone buying a "very high performance" car should have to take some type of "speed awareness" course, not just under 20's.
|
Yeh good idea, but unfortunately it would never work. People already flaunt the rules, driving dangerously, without insurance or even a licence, but no one ever stops them.
I agree that people who choose to buy "very high performance" cars should have to pass some sort of test. The same should be said for those who buy trailers, caravans and basically anything larger than a medium sized car. In the 50 mile motorway journey I took at the weekend I witnessed 3 caravans being towed with people sitting inside, trailers seriously overloaded and being towed by tailgating drivers in the outside lane, and then a middle aged man trying to park an estate car clipping both the car in the space next to his but also reversing into someone in the space behind ..... who was fortunately in their car at the time ;0)
|
|
|
There already IS a restriction on Teenage driving. Powerful cars are expensive. You can't buy a FAST car for £1500. Define what you call a powerful car. I don't see why people should be restricted to driving Smart cars just because of their age. Sure lets educate people about driving "fast cars" but how about teaching people about ordinary driving first. Lets have a little more legislation, why not? And people thought communist Russia was bad... wait until they see legislated Britain in 2020.
Regards
Chris
|
The car isn't the problem... it's the person behind the wheel. When I passed my test I used to drive a 1.0 Pug 106 which had very little power. However, I used to drive like a lunatic for the first 6 months after I passed my test - don't know why, just did.
It's not the power of the car that is the main cause of accidents in the younger population, it's innapropriate use of speed, lack of judgement / experience and more often than not, showing off. I managed to scrape through my teens without an accident, but not for the lack of trying.
|
Not staying for long so you'll be spared my usual rant.
Young people are limited as to what car they can buy. It's called insurance. Example. The quickest car out of all my mate's is the Clio 172. For 2 years hes been a named driver on his mum's. He rang up yesterday to insure it himself at age 21. £4600 TPFT.
Another example. Imagine a starry eyed youth who has passed his test and has been driving his Dad's car for a while. Imagine his delight when his father rings and says he's found a minter of a car. N Reg Fiesta (not that at that stage in life it matters what the car is). £1750 for the car. Best part of 2 grand to insure it Third party only.
To be honest, how many youths do you see messing about in carparks in ST24's or 2.9 S80's? Exactly.
How many do you see messing about in 1.0 Nova "Gsi"'s?
I rest my case.
--
Adam
|
Adam,
suppose the insurance companies would argue that as the statistics say 1 in 4 deaths by dangerous driving are caused by under 20's they are more than justified charging such crazy premiums. A bit unfair on the good drivers but suppose it's a good way of the insurance companies making a few extra quid !!
|
"There already IS a restriction on Teenage driving. Powerful cars are expensive. You can't buy a FAST car for £1500."
Oh yes you can. My flatmate has just got hold of a Nissan 200 SX Turbo (202bhp as standard) for £1000 - A seriously quick piece of machinery, rear wheel drive, but being 15 years old without many of the safety features seen in modern cars, both electronic and structural.
He's 21, with 3 years no claims and managed to get TPFT insurance for £800.
Although in general, yes, the restriction on younger drivers is that fast cars are simply uninsurable, hence why 99% of youngsters don't have them.
A limit is not the way to go though - this is already in place (as mentioned above) - and the problem comes from the ability and attitude of the driver.
Any car nowadays can reach 90mph, and break the speed limit on any road they want, if so inclined.
My own experience is that i now take corners at a much more relaxed pace in my 1.6 Escort than i did with my old 1.1 Fiesta, as when driving the Fiesta it was imperative to keep your momentum up in order to 'make progress', as the straightline acceleration simply wasn't there.
|
The trouble is many well off parents are more than willing to give their offspring high powered cars and pay the insurance as well.
There was a case in the paper a few months back of an 18 year old lad who managed to kill himself and four of his mates whilst driving a BMW M3 - yes it could have happened if he was driving a 1 litre Corsa but surely a lot less likely...
Why not be like Italy which restricts new drivers to 1.1 litre cars for a few years?
|
|
The statistics used to beat the normal young people are those created by the unrestricted actions of young criminals, people who steal cars and cause mayhem every night. Another con-trick by liberal elite who want us all stuffed on communal cattle carriages going where they want us to go.
|
RishabC
Wot planet do you live on? Is everything a contrick by the liberal BLAH......
IN this case it aint mate. Its fact. Most normal male youth (and I exclude you from this as you obviously dont qualify)think they are driving gods, and invincible to boot. "I could crash and die" does not enter the mind of a male youth with a freshly printed driving license.
Hence they all, almost without exception, at some time or other, drive foolishly.
I know I did.
|
|
|
|
Why not be like Italy which restricts new drivers to 1.1 litre cars for a few years?
Exactly, seeing as we do the same with bike riders.
|
|
|
Why not be like Italy which restricts new drivers to 1.1 litre cars for a few years?
Becuase that would be rubbish. I hate horrible little small cars, and insured a 1.9TD Xantia and a 2.0 16v Mondeo at 18 and 19 respectively.
I don't like the idea that rules should restrict sensible peoples opportuniy to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
From what I heard on the news yesterday, the proposals they're offering are utterly rediculous and not thought out at all.
Firstly, they want to restrict the number of passengers to one. Yes one. Why? Who knows. It only encourages racing: higher power to weight ratio, plus each of your mates will have to drive his own way into town, pub, cinema in seperate cars. Plus, with no car sharing option in place, nominating a driver each weekend so that all but one of you could drink will be impossible. Result: crowded town centres and teenage drivers with alcohol in their blood. Well done those campaigners!
Secondly, they want to ban driving at night. Why? I think it's so they can reach 25 and have no experience of night driving at all, and cause all the at-night accidents when they reach that age instead. Of course, much safer.
Thirdly, as already stated, young drivers already pay enough for their cars and insurance that goes with them. Did I want to pay close to £1000 on insurance in my first year of driving on a car worth £300 tops? Of course not, but that's the price we all have to pay for the careless few.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Rather than restricting the specific car types, it might be better to do what America does and restrict the number of people they can carry in the car. Most American kids drive very powerful cars but have a basic driving test.
I think for the first year they can't carry more than one other person of their own age, and they have to observe a curfew. Since most teenage drivers mess around when they have others in the car to impress, it might help.
A curfew, on the other hand, would have driven me up the wall, as my car was my only means of transport in Devon so I needed it to drive home from work (I used to finish at about midnight most nights) and nights out.
|
I wouldn't use any American law to base a UK law on!
As Tim W says, insurance is normally the prevailing factor in young people driving what they drive. I wonder if you looked at the statistics of accidents for young drivers, how many would be driving anything over 1.4/1.6 litre engines, not too many I'd imagine.
And as for limiting 2 people to a car, well that's just plain crazy. Drink driving in younger age groups would go through the roof, and it would potentially put more people on the road.
The main issue is how some young people drive. As I said earlier, I used to drive like a lunatic, whether it was in a 1.0 Pug 106 or a 2.5 V6 something or other. It was me flooring it in every single gear, it was me overtaking dangerously, it was me taking risks with my life quite a few times when I was in a car. The amount of power would have made some difference, but the main thing was my attitude, I was indestructable and a 'great' driver. Unfortunately, you can teach someone the basics of how to drive, but you can't teach them to be sensible, teach them experience or teach them how not to act like a prat. That comes with growing up. Some of my crazy driving was only 5 years ago too!
|
Actually, I've had a rethink. My sister will be learning in August...this doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.
--
Adam
|
Teenage male confidence in their own driving is pretty unshakeable, training is part of the key to keeping them accident free. Limiting the power of what they drive will at least limit the seriousness of the trouble they get into.
My 21 year old now has a 1.8 Xantia, not a super sporty car but with enough power that I would have been very worried about him driving it a couple of years ago.
|
The curfews and passenger limits suggestions are ridiculous. I can see the argument for the engine limit though.
I currently, at the age of 26, drive a 2.0 litre turbo. At the age of 17 I would have loved to have done so, but looking back from where I am now, I'm VERY glad I didn't get the chance. I very much doubt I'd still be alive to be quite honest.
The motorbike system seems eminently sensible to me.
|
Engine limits won't stick, you can drive a 1.0 litre corsa round a dangerous country bend just as fast as you can drive a V6 Mondeo.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Engine limits won't stick, you can drive a 1.0 litre corsa round a dangerous country bend just as fast as you can drive a V6 Mondeo. -------------- Mike Farrow
I see your point, but I drove the 1.3 Astra I had as fast as I possibly could for a lot of the time. If I'd had a 2.0 turbo Coupe I'd have driven that as fast as I could too - and it would have been a hell of a lot faster.
You're right, it's never going to suddenly stop young people having accidents, but at least it'll give them some experience of driving something relatively sedate before they get into a performance car.
|
|
|
I seem to remember the engine size limits came up a few years ago when a friend's teenage daughter was learning to drive.
Not being particularly well off, the family run only one car and daughter was still at school and unlikley to be able to afford to buy and run a car after passing her test.
Dad's point was that the only car the daughter had access to was the family car which was a large but old saloon. If she passed her test, she could carry on driving the car (assuming neither of the parents wanted it at the same time) and gain more driving experience. Also being the family car, she was likely to take great care of it knowing the problems losing the car would cause.
If she was banned from driving this car (due to its size) she would have no access to another car (it wouldn't have been practical for the family to change to a smaller car) and, once she'd passed her test, would have had no further driving experience for several years until she could either fund her own car or be old enough to drive the family car. The validity of her licence would have been unaffected by the lack of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that I read a similar article in today's Wall Street Journal wailing about teenage drivers accidents in the USA going up by 0.3% or something, and saying how states are trying to bring in legislation to clamp down on them.
|
|
|
I was first on four wheels (you could four wheel drift an Austin 8 on wet causeys!) but I really started to learn things when I got a bike; it is perhaps a pity that it is now such an involved process getting to a decent bike that I understand many will not bother just for that reason.
|
No more legislation - please!!!!!
|
I'm broadly against it, certainly in terms of limiting drivers to a particular class of car, let alone at night, or only one passenger, until 21 - but what about if passing the driving test entitled you to drive with those restrictions, with something like "Pass Plus" allowing you to take the blinkers off as an alternative to two years' experience.
I suspect it needs real research, by someone other than a pressure group (can anyone be neutral on this) but that might have a positive effect on the accident rate, using a carrot and a stick to motivate people into becoming safer, more thoughtful drivers by bringing people back for more lessons even after they've got the right to drive on their own in certain circumstances.
|
|
Not too long after passing my test I demolished a length of cotswold stone wall in a Saab 96 2 stroke (own fault, re-enacting the Monte!). I had just got used to the freedom and independance of car ownership. The 4 weeks or so of having to go back to pathetic public transport made me determined never, through my own actions, to be in that position again. Perhaps a short period of enforced abstinence would help.
|
|
|
|
