Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

new driving proposals

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the zero alcohol limit for 1st few years of a driving license is good as it puts you into a good habit


    not so good for veg/fruitarians though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    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 :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ah, ok.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote: »
    . Drink should be either banned across the board completely (yes please) or the laws just left as is.

    Agreed
    I would venture that a good proportion of drivers in their first year are perfectly capable of carrying passengers, but because some pea-brained idiots drag down the demographic everyone gets the usefulness of their vehicle limited.

    Agreed
    Better would be limiting the power of cars for newer drivers.

    Good idea

    How are they going to enforce most of these rules anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes pricing young people off the road, it already happens with insurance which is fair on the whole, but with having to take more driving lessons? and then not being able to provide lifts even though you're able to drive?
    You'd be pleasantly surprised with insurance if you look around, you know. My dad helped me out, searching several websites and several car insurance companies he knows about for quotes. For me, quotes varied from the lowest at £630 to the highest at over £1800. That's a difference of over a grand. For a 22-year old who's just passed his test, getting his car insured for just £630 isn't bad going!
    the zero alcohol limit for 1st few years of a driving license is good as it puts you into a good habit
    There are too many questions for this idea to work. How do you enforce it? And how is a copper going to distinguish who hasn't had their licence for a full year yet in the first place? After all, not all learners are 17-year olds, thank god.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote: »
    Better would be limiting the power of cars for newer drivers.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the intentions are good, and I think raising the driving age by a year would make a bit of difference, but the real problem is convincing young people to drive more safely. I'm not sure that the stick of legislation does that.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I think the intentions are good, and I think raising the driving age by a year would make a bit of difference, but the real problem is convincing young people to drive more safely. I'm not sure that the stick of legislation does that.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    not enoguh real traffic cops imo

    Agreed completely
    and most are too busy scanning license plates for other convictions now anyway


    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually do not agree with the proposal to raise the driving age. I think we are too "age-restricting" already. Young people should be taught to be more responsible with cars.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually do not agree with the proposal to raise the driving age. I think we are too "age-restricting" already. Young people should be taught to be more responsible with cars.

    But at the age of 17, isn't someone still classed a child in the eyes of the law?:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone aged 17 is considered old enough to drive then for driving purposes they must be classed as fully-responsible. That also means that any offences they commit should be treated as adult offences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair point. I do wonder now if they'll increase the age for motorbikes & mopeds?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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! :lol: )

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Peiople who learn older tend to be more mature, though, and don't drive fast simply because they can. They also don't have the peer pressure to drive dangerously, which is something that affects a lot of young men.

    I can't see a flaw with the plan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was reading the Times today (as you do :cool: ) and the way they put it was that they weren't raising the driving age, but they were forcing at least 12 months between the first lesson and the test, so that new drivers have had experience of the vast majority of things that the weather and other things can throw at them as a driver (so in effect raising the driving age, but it would mean that if I learnt now, I would still have to have been learning a year). It said something about how people who pass their test within six months having learnt over spring and summer won't have necessarily experienced driving in the dark, and CERTAINLY won't have had experience of driving in snow or ice or anything like that.

    I think it's a good idea, tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally, I am open to the test age being raised to 18 and to there being a miniumum number of lessons, but the banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year is crazy. It's not practical. And I thought the government was encouraging car sharing?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sounds like a money making scam to give mroe worker to instructors (who charge extortionate amounts already)

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sounds like a money making scam to give mroe worker to instructors (who charge extortionate amounts already)

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Peiople who learn older tend to be more mature, though, and don't drive fast simply because they can. They also don't have the peer pressure to drive dangerously, which is something that affects a lot of young men.

    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).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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! :lol: )

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    as I know, there is no evidence that new/young drivers are any less capable of driving safely with passengers than experienced drivers

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The results of the trials in Sweden and in California would indicate differently.
    I wouldn't mind taking a look at that if you have a link.
    Kermit wrote: »
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9542543&dopt=Citation
    the negative effect of passengers on overall accident rates was evident only for 16-19 year old drivers. This effect was quite pronounced for both sexes, with accident involvement rates being approximately twice as high with passengers as without. For 16-19 year olds, accident rates were also significantly higher for two or more passengers versus one passenger. The highest rates for this age group occurred with passengers at nighttime.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sounds like a money making scam to give more work to instructors (who charge extortionate amounts already)
    Nonsense. If you shop around, you will find varying prices with instructors. Just consider how much it costs them to stay in business. They need to pay insurance, (which, given they teach people, runs into many thousands) the cars they use fot lessons are tested rigorously and regularly, the wages of driving instructors need to be paid, (which are not as high as is widely believed) and just imagine the cost of fuel for a busy instructor. My instructor told me it wasn't unusual for him to go through £100 of fuel a week - and that was in just one car!

    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. :p
Sign In or Register to comment.