If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
not so good for veg/fruitarians though.
the alcohol content of them is low enough to be counted as if you've eaten bread etc
anyway, they're just silly
Agreed
Agreed
Good idea
How are they going to enforce most of these rules anyway?
You say that, but I wonder how many of these crashes actually occur in anything more than a 1.4l car. There's also the issue of people's needs. A young family might need a bigger car for their kids. Someone who's just started work as a freelance builder, plumber, electrician, etc, might need to be able to drive a diesel van. That would be against the law, but I can't see many people racing in their transit van or vauxhall zafira, and if they did it wouldn't go very fast. The fact is that you'll struggle to find a car that won't go 100mph nowadays, so I don't see how limiting the engine size will achieve much.
On the idea of limiting passengers at night, I think it's pretty stupid. Firstly, there is a distinct lack of police to enforce the existing laws. What about people who are going on a trip and would prefer to drive at night to avoid the traffic? Surely that's a good thing? I can understand the reasoning, that it's often groups of lads at night that cause accident, but surely it's a problem that needs combatting by more effective policing, rather than new laws that make it look like the government's doing something, when in reality it does fuck all.
Just a quick little anecdote to scare you all though. My step-cousin (is that a real thing?), has written of three cars since passing his test two years ago, yet he's still allowed to drive simply because no-one else was involved. How is that right?
Young people are involved in more crashes because they tend to drive smaller tinnier cars (I wouldn't want to park a Saxo in a tree, put it that way) and they tend to drive too fast for their skills. I don't think changing the law will stop that. Upholding the existing laws better will.
Speed cameras prevent real traffic police being out and about, and because of that the very worst drivers will escape censure unless they actually manage to kill someone.
not enoguh real traffic cops imo and most are too busy scanning license plates for other convictions now anyway
Agreed completely
How does sitting/driving whilst on patrol and letting an automatic number plate reader quietly scan cars and alerting them to ones that are stolen/used in crime/uninsured stop them doing their job....?
They do look for dodgy cars as well, they don't just rely on the technology.
My belief is that the accidents are caused primarily by lack of driving experience, and this would happen whatever age you get people started.
Why are there no proposals also to have an upper age limit for driving, given that after young people, it is the elderly who are the worst drivers?
Well in terms of actual accidents caused, old people are way out in front apparently.
But at the age of 17, isn't someone still classed a child in the eyes of the law?
Rather than controlling the particular car to buy with a specific engine size, they could just restrict the engines, like they do on motorbikes, to prevent you breaking the speed limit?
(You'd be surprised about transits, there was one on Silverstone tracks last year!
I dont think speed is always the issue, I think it is carelessness, laziness and sheer lack of common sense in most cases.
There's only going to be so much the government/police are able to do before they start infringing on people's rights etc. It's just a shame they don't really listen to the general public, as they could probably find some good solutions.
I can't see a flaw with the plan.
I think it's a good idea, tbh.
I agree... On a personal level, if I was expecting a child I would make a concerted effort to go and pass my test. But then I would not be able to drive my children around for a year at night, despite being in my late 20s? Ridiculous.
if someone is fit to take the test, and pass, they're fit enough to drive
nothing wrong with passing the test at 17, since you'll only be able to drive like normal at 18 anyway
they dont make that much money, when you think the cost of fuel, insurance, survicing on the car, they arnt making a lot of cash
I think it's a minority of young men that actually drive dangerously due to peer pressure. As far as I know, the main cause of accidents is impatience, which is something that affects people of all ages. And to be honest, despite it being my opinion that there are plenty of people out there that aren't safe enough drivers (regularly hesitating/not signalling, etc), it is the well skilled, but impatient driver that then ends up having the accident. I don't really know how you legislate against this.
The young people/new driver limit on passengers seems to be another one of those bright ideas that sounds good, but as far as I know, there is no evidence that new/young drivers are any less capable of driving safely with passengers than experienced drivers (at least to no greater degree than they are less capable drivers in general). It sounds like a reasonable assumption, but without any evidence, that's all that it is. It seems like another example of people coming up with the solutions before the problems and their causes have been identified (like the whole smoking while driving thing).
Which speed limits? The 70mph one? Not much use in the centre of town. Also not much use when you're an 18 year old going for a job where you would be required to drive someone else's van. Are they really going to hire you, if it would involve limiting the top speed on their van (presumably at their own cost too)?
Oh, and did it look like this?
The results of the trials in Sweden and in California would indicate differently.
Making the drivers learn for longer before being unleashed on the roads cannot be a bad thing.
I don't have a problem with that. But limiting passengers is a stupid idea. Incorporate it into the test if needs be, but not letting people carry passengers kinda negates the point of learning to drive for 90% of people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9542543&dopt
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHT-3VJ3912-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=60269b9856738bc3fd891d1390df3dd3
There is a *lot* of evidence in support of a graduated licensing system and demonstrating the relationship between young/inexperienced drivers and passengers, as well as night driving. At the end of the day, yes it would be an inconvenience to some people, but when measures like these can be introduced and have been proven to reduce a real risk by a significant amount, then that to me outweighs the inconveniences it brings about.
Having been driving now for nearly two months, I'd have to agree on new limits being brought in on younger drivers. I would also agree that there must be limits on the sorts of vehicle they can drive. It makes sense for a younger driver to go for an older car, if only for the cheaper car insurance that can mean. My car is 12 years old, but it was cheap to insure, it's cheap to run, and it still works. People often say "I bet that's a slow car", but you'd be surprised. I felt particularly smug after overtaking a BMW which was doing 40mph on a national speed limit road.