Yes, I too was annoyed by the Traffic Cops programme yesterday.
With 'punishments' like this then it hardly encourages people to keep to the law, does it?
HF
|
|
The lad in the Nova was indicative of an increasing proportion of the population that does not give a stuff. Do as they please, no values and certainly no respect for authority. Why oh why cannot the cars be taken from them and crushed. Hit em where it really hurts!
|
|
Because a tenner will buy you a functional, if not necessarily roadworthy, car at auction these days and there's a decent choice for £100. Okay, it's not legal to drive it, but having a car crushed that's only worth the price of a Playstation once a year is hardly a problem.
|
Was at an auction today, a running Astra/Maestro/Mitsubushi Galant can be bought for £20. No surprise that there's some dodgy cars about, when all the above went for £20 - £30.
Blue
|
|
|
|
|
And it wasn't the first time the Nova driver had been stopped either. He had been previously stopped before due to the Nova being in a non roadworthy condition and the previous faults hadn't been rectified the second time they pulled him over. Why didn't the cops check to see if he had insurance, MOT and a driving licence on the first pull?
|
One of the largest barriers to being legal is the actual cost of insurance for these drivers in the first place. If TPO insurance was brought down to a sensible level for even the worst of drivers (with bigger excesses & more restrictions perhaps) then there would be no excuse for anyone to not have insurance. I can understand a young persons frustration if they have a non descript car, a poorly paid job and are then expected to find the best part of a grand a year ( or more) just to insure it TPO which they are required by law to do. Perhaps having limited policies for young drivers so the main causes of accidents (mates in their car) and times ( pub and club kicking out times) were excluded as times they could drive would allow them to have insurance at a sensible level. I suppose it comes down to whether you think it is a right to own a car and travel in it or a privilege.
teabelly
|
Quitebright Teabelly. A car is not a priviledge or a right or a luxury - it is a simple necessity of life.
When I started driving my insurance was restricted in just the way you suggest. I was not allowed to carry passengers under 21.
|
The restrictions are still a bit limiting tho...
I like been able to drive with a car full of mates, but don't use it as an opportunity to show off, the car simply wouldn't handle it! I will be taking the Fiesta to Alton Towers next week with 3 passengers, would make the trip much more expensive if we had to all taker our own cars.
Also, on the (rare) occasions when I go out straight after work (and don't drink obviously), it's nice when me and the girls are able to skip past the taxi queue and get into my nice comfortable car, sit and eat a pizza and then drive off saving everyone the taxi fare :)
I realise though that I am (relatively) responsibile for someone of my age, and that I'm in the minority. :(
I suppose it would be nice to have the option of the cheaper insurance though, if I was prepared to live with the restrictions, which I wouldn;t be.
Blue
|
|
|
When I started driving my insurance was restricted in just the way you suggest. I was not allowed to carry passengers under 21.
Being able to do some or all of the driving on family days out was very helpful as practice for me in many situations. It helped also that it was a situation where I wasn't going to show off and had someone with a level head to bring me back down to earth if I got a little carried away. (Even if my mother does have an unwarranted fear of 'notorious' banks and passes...)
I agree that going out with a car-load of mates can cause some drivers to be irresponsible. However, these days when both parents work or have other things to do, being able to run taxi for other family members can be very handy and you'd need to think carefully before preventing that.
|
|
|
|
|
The best restriction on young drivers IMO would be engine size. Pass your test and you are allowed to have nothing more than a 1.2/70bhp for a year. Get through the year with no accidents and you can progress to a bigger engine, have an accident and you stay restricted. Other countries do this, I believe.
|
Don't our insurance premiums do that anyway, to a certain extent? e.g., if you want a 2.0 Focus, a young driver will be paying twice the premium over, say, a 1.4 - which, while it may be over your threshhold is NOT a quick car.
In any case, because of that, it's the smaller engined cars that tend to have the worst accident record as only good drivers can afford to insure them.
Believe me, just because it takes longer for a small engined car to get there (and it will usually have worse tyres and brakes for stopping) doesn't mean you can't drive it at 90 on a country road. It's quite possible to be irresponsible and/or dangerous in a 950 Fiesta, but without the crumple zones and ABS of a more powerful or modern car.
The bigger problem is people buying base model cars for their lower insurance groups and then modifying them without declaring the mods, or probably realising that they have to, combined with those who are the main users of cars insured in a parent's name. These people are beating the system by paying less than the insurance companies would assess the risk at and indirectly increasing premiums for all drivers, though not necessarily in the same way as those who drive without insurance.
|
" young driver will be paying twice the premium over, say, a 1.4 - which, while it may be over your threshhold is NOT a quick car."
Like my wife's 1.4 diesel Citroen you mean?
Damn near 120 mph and 0-60 in 10 seconds? Almost the same performance as the much vaunted Mk 1 Lotus Cortina of my youthful aspirations.
So then we look at bhp?
But that doesn't work since modding a car to deliver more power ir reatively simple to do, and relatively difficult to detect.
No answers, just more questions.
Rob
|
|
Not clear, I meant a 1.4 Focus, 75 bhp, 0-60 in 14 seconds and flat out around the ton.
|
|
|
|
I'd say a car, and a driving license are a privilege.
And also a Passport for that matter.
I think that any of these should be an option for the courts to take away.
So if you're a football hooligan you lose the passport, so you can't go to footie matches overseas, go on holiday to spain, or get a job in Germany etc.
If you're a bad driver, or a drunken driver, you lose the driving license.
If you don't maintain the car, insure it, drive like a lunatic, you lose the car.
I do agree that a massive increase in the punishment of drivers who aren't legal, aren't insured or with dodgy cars is required. Some insurance premuims in London now run into thousands for reasnably every day cars. So a fine for no insurance needs to be around the 5k or even 10k mark in my opinion. The sort of figure that many young drivers can't afford anyway.
I was on the A40 recently, there'd been a small accident and the one driver got out of his car, crossed a slip road and then up and over the nearest fence. Not sure why, but if you can't catch him you can't fine him.
As for the number plate recognition, isn't the theft of number plates on the increase. Now that the supply of number plates is more strictly controlled, you have stolen plates being put onto legit cars (maybe of the same type,colour) for a while and these are then used for london congestion charging, and anything else that relies on number plates.
So if you have an accident these days, what is the process to ensure you can claim without too much hassle. How do you get someones identity confirmed at the side of the road. I've made a note of the Reg, but if this is false, the person says anything. I don't see you have much option but calling the police, which is a waste of their time.
Durelli
cheers
Durelli - son of a famous Italian tyre maker
|
|
Well i was on my way to Warrington along the A49 at Winwick, and the police were out it number about 8 cars and a couple of vans, stopping a lot of cars, also had a camera with them too, did not stop me, but then i am an old fuddy duddy woman? maybe i could get away with murder, would like to give it a try but then again i have been brought up to be very law abiding, but the trouble with us law abiders when we do need the police we never see them.
|
I wonder what the situation would be if the law was changed to allow really young drivers on the roads, as in the USA?
The insurance co's would have a fit! IIRC they can drive at just fourteen - don't know if there's any form of restriction imposed?
|
Jeez! I wouldn't trust the average fourteen year old with hairdryer, never mind a car!
AFAIK, it's only some states that allow drivers at 14. Mind you, here in good old Blighty 16 year olds can legally drive if they are on the Motability scheme
|
|
|
|
One of the largest barriers to being legal is the actual cost of insurance for these drivers in the first place. If TPO insurance was brought down to a sensible level for even the worst of drivers (with bigger excesses & more restrictions perhaps) then there would be no excuse for anyone to not have insurance.
I can see what you're getting at but I think third party insurance is already at a sensible level. If you think of the number of accidents that young people have, they are getting off lightly (though obviously not as lightly as those without insurance). If one insurer heavily cut its premiums for young drivers, it would be deluged with unprofitable business that could send it under.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
