Tragiclly recently in gloucestershire there have been several young people killed? in just acouple of weeks familys and friends have had their whole lives torn apart!!! to quote one of the fathers who was arranging his young teenage son" HE WAS MY FRIEND MY BEST FRIEND NO ANGEL NO ROGUE, I GAVE HIM MONEY FOR THE NIGHT, IN HIS COFFIN I GIVE HIM NEW NIKE TRAINERS as i refused before IN HIS COFFIN I GIVE HIM HIS MOBILE WITH LOADS OF CREDIT wishing he can phone me to tell me he is safe, I GIVE HIM NEW LEVI'S JEANS to look smart ALSO I GIVE HIM WALKERS CRISPS HIS BEST C/D's WITH PLAYER AND NEW DURACELL BATTERIES. I GIVE HIM MANY MORE PERSONNEL THINGS. !!!!!!!!!!! TOO LATE HES GONE?

I work for the AA and see as much if not more than most? the recovery garages are full to the gunnels of vehicles torn appart like paper, all of them carrying passengers at the time, those cars could be carryiong you, me your son or daughter or grand children?

I believe that its time for a radical change in the law, similar to m/cycle restrictions. I appreciate all the arguments for/against restrictions but life on the our highways is becoming just to dangerous for us/and your beloved to ignore any longer? your views pls

It's certainly an emotive subject, however the one obvious flaw I can see in it is with the likes of my own car that's about 130 bhp - not much more than a family car, but stick it in a 450kg car, and you can eat most stuff round a track and it can be very scary in the wet - much more so than a 300 bhp BMW for instance - becasue it'll break traction so easily.

In Ireland (North and South) car insurance is so insanely expensive for any driver under 25 the only cars most can afford to insure are Saxo's, Nova's, Corsa's etc. Still tragedies do happen all too often.

Have been a few in my neck of the woods, one about 4 weeks back on a dangerous and very congested dual carriageway has now turned into the usual pathetic roadside shrine adorned with flowers and football strip. by all accounts the lad was a decent sort he just didn't have the judgement and experience to realise the speed he was doing was totally out of order for the road and weather conditions. One common factor in that incident much of the truly appalling driving I see everyday is the number that are nearly new small hatchbacks driven by young drivers --- always models that are sold with free insurance packages.


The lack of judgement of young drivers together with th gross over confidence given by the almost idiot proof handling of a typical modern fwd is a major problem, FWD cars might be more forgiving of idiots behind the wheel but when pushed too far they tend to bite back very hard.
Near me there is a stretch of crash barrier on a slip road from a roundabout, until the junction was redesigned one particular length was hit very hard on an almost weekly basis. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why the barrier was getting damaged in the way it was --- if I went to that corner to fast I might hit the barrier but it would be much further into the corner and a glancing impact. Eventually I saw it happen a young girl in a Fiat hatch went in to the corner about 30+ mph faster than even someone as insane as me would, of course she hit the brakes and turned in at the same time the result was the car snaked and twitched about very badly then looked like it was about to do a 360 when at that point it bounced off the barrier with just a very hard corner impact.


[Edited on 26/5/05 by britishtrident]

The big difference between these days and 'when I were a lad' is that, in those days, if you did something stupid on the road or drove badly then there was a fairly high chance of getting pulled over and bollocked by a traffic policeman. I'd drive from home 6 or 8 miles to work and I'd probably pass 3 or 4 patrol cars going about their business - a good incentive to drive properly!

These days the only time you'll see a traffic cop is if you park in the wrong place...

DJ

I don't really know the situation in the UK, but...

Age/power is too simple IMHO. The above-mentioned 130 bhp in a 1400 kg luxury car with ABS, ESP, TC, etc. - A4 / Passat / Mondeo / Vectra / etc... - is a totally different experience than driving a BEC - I assume - or a 900 kg GTI - I know for sure -.

When you want to rule out hot-hatches on basis of power, you probably forbid them to drive their parents car on occasion as well (like picking up your crippled grandmother for X-mas diner ). Even if you restrict them to 75 bhp or so, it is still sufficient to reach insane speeds on country roads.

Most people learn to drive nowadays in cars that are equipped with ABS, ESP, TC, etc., although their first car will propably don't have (all of) these systems. Personally I find it interesting what influence this has...

[Edited on 26/5/05 by gys]

That opening statement has sent shivers up my spine - fantastic speech but tragic all the same.

I cant see restrictions working. A 1.3 Nova can still do 90mph and kill people in the wrong hands. I do agree something should be done but im not clever enough to work out what. Some limit will be better than nothing but some people will be counting down the days that they can get their hands on some power and then will be like screaming banshees when it comes. Unfortunately they wont have the experience to handle it.

Perhaps the written test should be two fold - the second focussing on the wrecked lives and tragedies. Shock doesnt always work tho' does it. You cant be taught experience.

Even small entry level hatchbacks because they have low drag coefficients now have quite high to speeds - I remember a road test on The last Nissan Micra only 1000cc it was slated for being too slow but the top speed recorded was 100mph not too shabby for a 1000cc shopping trolley !

With the cost of insurance Id say the amount of teenagers driving even vaguely powerful cars is a very small minority, so even with legislation like this 95% of young drivers won't be affected. With only say 5% being affected, how many of those 5% actually have accidents that can be directly attributed to the power of the car? I would guess a lot would have had the same crash regardless of whether they were driving a Fiat Panda or a Ferrari, and you could argue in some circumstances doing the same speeds etc, driving the more powerful car with better brakes, better handling etc might actually have avoided the accident occuring. Therefore id say the reduction in accidents would be very small.

I think a better bet would be for new drivers to display "provisional" P plates, maybe for 2 years after passing the test. You could then for example restrict these drivers to 50mph on main roads in a similar way that lorries are limited to 40mph, and the sticker on the car acts as a visible reminder to the driver that they aren't yet perceived as a fully qualified driver, so may tone down their ego a little. This system could also then put in place other rules such as if they have a fault accident the P plate period gets extended for another year a bit like the current legislation where if you get certain points on your license in the first few years, you retake the test.

[Edited on 26/5/05 by ChrisGamlin]

My experiance from college, was that small hatchbacks can still be bloody dangerous. When you think about it, a 1 litre fiesta is quiker than cars of old like the morris 1000, of which quite a few were parked in ditches/hedges by young drivers in and around the 60's/70's (its not a new problem).

With the aid of just a nackered deisel golf, I've managed to give myself one heck of a fright. Fortunatly nothing collided or got damaged apart from a very healthy dent to my ego.


As for driving too fast, the only crash i've ever had, was below 10 mph. speed is only one factor.

The P late sounds an intersting idea, but my experiance says that some people can even after decades of driving are still a long way off being a good driver.

[Edited on 26/5/05 by clbarclay]

Over here in Ontario Canada insurance is rediculously expensive. New Drivers under 25 or so probably average 3-4000 cnd $ or close to 2000#. We have once company advertising an imediate 25% decrease in rates if you put a transponder or black box in the car and keep it under 120 km/h where the highest speedlimit is 100. I imagain if you get in an accident that black box is there ticket out of paying for any claim.

For me at 40 and a good record a new kit car if you can find insurance for it would be between 2 and 3 thousand a year- clasic insurance will cover the same car (minimum of 15 years old for around 300$ a year- as long as there are no licensed drivers with less than 10 years experience in the household.
Dale

Its always sad to hear of people being hurt or killed especially the innocent victims.
This is not a new problem i remember when i was just passed my test the number of folk my age that were killed locally was quite high and we've all done stupid things in cars at one time or another.
However speeds theese days are much higher with a family car being faster than a mark 1 mexico or just about any car from the old days.
Power of any kind is never the problem, power needs respect, its fine to have it when you need it, but abuse it and it will eventually bite you back.
On a lighter side the politicians should also read the last paragraph.
So who's i favour of a new traffic law to cover the following

Driving in a manner that upsets other road users

driving to slow

driving to close together with no intentions of overtaking, and not leaving enough room for someone behind you to.( especially when i'm in a slow white van )

the charge would be

Driving with a lack of respect for other road users.

Sorry for the rant but it's lunchtime and someone pissed me of this morning.

This is a very interesting topic. A few years ago my cousin who was 17 had just passed his test bought a fiat uno turbo as his first car. On the road 2 months and lost it barrel rolled it into a river and died instantly from a broken neck. Now obviously driving like a tit had he had a slower car it may not have happened. I am all for a restricted license.

That said even the newer 1litres go like poo of a shovel

quote:

---

Originally posted by omega 24 v6
However speeds theese days are much higher with a family car being faster than a mark 1 mexico or just about any car from the old days.

---

when I was 18 (I am 28 now, as of yesterday!) I had a 1.0 VW polo with a huge 45hp.

With 2 mates in the car with me (all of us with seatbelts on thankfully) I crashed, at only a relatively low speed (approx 50mph) having entered a wet, gentle bend and hit some diesel on the road.

The car flipped end over end 3 times, barrel rolled 3 times and then caught fire with us in it.

We all escaped luckily (and I count myself lucky) but I could not help but wonder why it happened.

When I had saved up for a new car I then ignored my parents requests that I get another slow pile of crap, and got an old RWD Opel Manta 2.0 GTE.

This was SO much safer to drive than the Polo that it was just unreal!

I realised then why I crashed the Polo, there was just NO feel to the steering etc on the polo, it was all lightened up (no power steering, just no caster either!!) so granny could drive it, and in the wet you had NO prior warning that the front was losing grip.

I FULLY agree with the statements about modern cars being so insulating from road conditions that they are a hazard, because it's simple........they are!

I have since tried (a large number of!)FWD cars again, very briefly, and to be honest, they are total and utter shite to drive, being so forgiving to a point, and then so very unforgiving in a panic situation.

There is no answer to young people killing themselves, small engine or big, it will happen exactly the same, as long as bravado exceeds talent, crashes and deaths will happen.

Legislation will not solve it so lets not pretend it will and further the current nanny state that we live in.

What about me and Adam (phelpsa)? Why should i have to pay becuase you get stupid idiots, i am feed up at school, not being able to do stuff, becuase you get the idots acting stupid and ruining it for the rest of us? And this is the same thing.

Phil

p.s. a simple solutation would be to just fit a bike engine

Just the kind of hooligans were trying to beat into submission! No-one should have a licence until they are 30 at least! And the car must tow a caravan at all times! And the driver must wear a flat cap when driving!



Angry of Tunbridge Wells

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Jenkins
Just the kind of hooligans were trying to beat into submission!

---

Till they are properly qualified and then they get to wear a trilby. Women drivers get a headscarf, patterned when they qualify.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peteff
Women drivers get a headscarf, patterned when they qualify.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peteff
Till they are properly qualified and then they get to wear a trilby. Women drivers get a headscarf, patterned when they qualify.

---

<rant>
In Suffolk the major problem is geriatric drivers. Common sins include:

* wandering over the road (in and out of the car!)
* driving too slow (35mph in a 60mph zone is common)
* over-cautious driving (like stopping at a roundabout to have a good look, even though there isn't another car to be seen)

I'm not expecting them to drive like a loon - just to keep a sensible pace and show some consideration to others on the road.

</rant>

DJ

My Tom is part way through his Velocity X-Flow build and regardless of the power from the little 1100cc lump of iron, which is a great insurance lowerer, it's the two seats which I feel will have the best effect.

Boy in car versus mate in passenger seat who wants to "put your foot down!".
Boy tells his mate where to go.

Boy in car versus three (or four) mates who want him to "put your foot down!!" Mates win...peer pressure.

There is a power/age restriction for riding motorbikes, i had a scooter at 16, with a tope speed of 35mph i still managed to come off it a few times, never going much faster than 15mph mainly due to stupid things like leaning too far or the embarrasing occasion when i hit the pavement . all i had to do to ride that was do a CBT which basically means riding round a car park for a while. I now have a 125 cc bike which puts out about 15bhp and does 70mph, within a week of riding like a tit i had managed to come off, and now take more care. I have never been injured riding a bike, never hit another vehical or person and every time ive fallen off its usually been as a result of riding like a cocky bastard, i realise its more difficult to have such a restriction with cars due to the differing weights etc, but I feel the gradual increase in power on a bike means im a much better rider than had i jumped on a zx6r straight after passing my test. i am restricted to 33bhp for 2 years after passing my test.

Interesting point that last one (one before last - slow typing!). The propensity for showing off is probably also proportional to the size of audience too, which would bear out the same point.

You also feel pretty open to the world in a 7 and don't get that safe cocooned feeling that "normal" cars fool you with as well.

those plus the points I made about insulated modern fwd cars are all plus points for having a 7 as a first car methinks!

[Edited on 26/5/05 by NS Dev]

My max speed is usually lower in my Locost than it would be in my Yaris, purely due to the impression of speed... mind you, round the bendy bits is a different matter!

DJ

Freg
The boys in the care if front/behind are just as bad as the mates in the car, if not worse because they start to race each other.


Raiseing the driving age would have little effect other than instead of having inexperianced 17 year olds, you have inexperianced 25/30 year olds (or whatever age you raise it to).


David, if you've calmed down from your rant regards coffin dodgers, would you sooner they drove at low speeds (easy to ovber take) within thier ability. or would you sooner they drove like deaf bats out of hell and consiquencly you end up being rear ended by them.

[Edited on 26/5/05 by clbarclay]

I think Insurers have some massive problems with younger Drivers and I'm sure they'd love this power cap so they could charge even more.

Surely if you can you can prove yourself and achieve your no claims bonus or even take a more sensible real world driving test why should you pay more? or have the cap?
If I have achieved my X years no claims surely that makes me as safe a driver as a 40 yro with X years no claims.

Sod the statistics its the person your insureing, or limiting the age/power.

I have a 1.1 Fiesta and I my insurers were debating if I could install a high-level brake light for christ sake!

And of cause they said a big no no to alloys and hence no nice 195 grippy tyres! (Said because it made it more appealing to pinch and my age).
And I didn't even tell them about the grooved Sierra Disks but this combo has saved me on so many occasions!
Where even I admit I would have struggled with the standard car (which piddely tyres locked up like mad) and maybe my inexperience I probably would have come a cropper.

Just because of big wheels and upgraded brakes would I really be racing in a 1.1!
I have mearly Increased the safety features of the car!

And last thought/Rant, Why do we have the driving test as it stands at all, If the safest drivers are supposedly Advanced/persuit (Police 154mph ) drivers, why don't we all recieve this training before being let on the road!

the bottom line is that most new drivers drive like prats, and nearly all are vastly inexperienced - very few have even driven on a motorway!

in my opinion, theres nothing to be done about it. The only way they will slow down is when someone they know dies, or when they have a brown pant moment themselves.

To brand all new drivers as pratts is crap.

My 17 year old is responsible and a good driver because I have trained him to be a good and sensible driver. My basic creed is all other road users are idiots and expect the unexpected. If you make sure you are in the right you'll never be in the wrong.

Of course they are inexperienced because they havn't had a chance to get any and they aren't allowed on the motorways.

My lad get's ripped off for £70 a month TPFT on a 16 year old scirroco. I think there should be bigger excesses to discourage bad driving or maybe a ban and retest for dangerous driving in the first 3 years.

You won't stop bad driving any more than bad behaviour in schools and on teh streets until parent show some responsibility for what their children do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by clbarclay
David, if you've calmed down from your rant regards coffin dodgers, would you sooner they drove at low speeds (easy to ovber take) within thier ability. or would you sooner they drove like deaf bats out of hell and consiquencly you end up being rear ended by them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MkIndy7
I think Insurers have some massive problems with younger Drivers and I'm sure they'd love this power cap so they could charge even more.

Surely if you can you can prove yourself and achieve your no claims bonus or even take a more sensible real world driving test why should you pay more? or have the cap?
If I have achieved my X years no claims surely that makes me as safe a driver as a 40 yro with X years no claims.

Sod the statistics its the person your insureing, or limiting the age/power.

I have a 1.1 Fiesta and I my insurers were debating if I could install a high-level brake light for christ sake!

And of cause they said a big no no to alloys and hence no nice 195 grippy tyres! (Said because it made it more appealing to pinch and my age).
And I didn't even tell them about the grooved Sierra Disks but this combo has saved me on so many occasions!
Where even I admit I would have struggled with the standard car (which piddely tyres locked up like mad) and maybe my inexperience I probably would have come a cropper.

Just because of big wheels and upgraded brakes would I really be racing in a 1.1!
I have mearly Increased the safety features of the car!

And last thought/Rant, Why do we have the driving test as it stands at all, If the safest drivers are supposedly Advanced/persuit (Police 154mph ) drivers, why don't we all recieve this training before being let on the road!

---

I'm bored so here goes...

My dad taught me to drive, and I have on many occasions been told that I drive like him. I have been driving for 3 years (on and off), and have driven a lot of different cars. I have never come close to hitting anything or going off the road. I was taught to treat everyone else on the road like they are stupid, and always try to anticipate what could happen.

I have driven over the speed limit on occasion (hasnt everyone?), but only when it is safe and if I know the road. I dont speed as a rule because my liscence is worth too much to me, as is cheap insurance.

I took the pass plus test (supposed to be 12hours extra tuition) which I passed with 5 hours training. I was simply told that I didnt need to do anymore as the instructor was confident in my abilities.

All that said (and I love to point this out to my mates) I am the only one from my group of college friends who hasnt had an accident. One had a head on collision (with the mayor of all people) down a single track road, and was driving too fast, he lost his liscence and had to retake his test. Another stuffed his rover 620 into a hedge, driving too fast in the wet. Another put his car in a hedge though it wasnt his fault. He was taking evasive action against two tw&ts on mopeds who were racing each other on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend.

There is nothing wrong with driving powerful cars, as long as you know your own limits and skills. Evidently some of the 'experienced' drivers on here dont with the number of locosts that were crashed this last winter!

I would encourage people to take some form of extra driver training, such as the IAM course, which I plan on taking sooner or later.

If you worry about what 'normal' teenagers are driving you should see what some of the Jap students here drive...! I also have some mates who ride big bikes, TT600s, CBR600s and Ducati's. All of whom are very sensible and havent had any scrapes *touch wood*.

Besides you will find most insurance companies wont touch big powerful cars (or even small ones for that matter) for people under 21. Try getting insurance on a locost when you are 20, you wont get far. Those that will insure powerful cars will charge a high premium for the privaledge.

David

In responce to Britishtrident

Sorry if I gave that Impression and most people probably would see it that way about the braking too hard too late.

I am not guilty of this I was trying to make the point that should I find myself needing to brake late to avoid an accident I have the equipment to do it
and like I said I believe this has saved me many times where maybe my inexperience might have caused me to be in a crash.

So why do insurance companies object to this?

I have also taken my Pass Plus test and even chose a 5 door version of the car to get cheeper Insurance, yes even that makes a difference!

P.S, I do drive a Seven and not much differently to my normal car, with upmost respect! and peole have actually commented to my dad (not to me personally) how well I have driven them on a test drive.

[Edited on 26/5/05 by MkIndy7]

There will always be exceptions to the rules and there are undoubtedly many young drivers who are actually very good behind the wheel, but I bet every single one of those good drivers will be even better in 5 years time with experience, as will current average and bad young drivers who will also all improve with experience even if they never actually become a good driver.
You can't make up rules / laws that suit everybody all of the time, its always a compromise but there's no escaping the fact that young / inexperienced drivers as a rule are far more likely to have an accident than those with more experience, therefore that in itself gives reason enough for legislation to reduce the danger IMO.

I agree that young drivers seem to be the ones who have accidents, but it's as much to do with inexperience as immaturity. I know adults who've had major accidents within 6 months of passing the test!

And if anyone thinks I'm spouting a 'holier than thou' attitude, I've had a few accidents in my time - all but one of them when I was between 17 and 20, so I'm as guilty! Only one since then, and that was someone who hit me from behind 'cos he wasn't looking (and it's been a loong time since I was 20)

Let's be careful out there...

David

Yep I was really aiming that at inexperienced drivers as much as young drivers (hence the suggestion above of P plates for 2 years after test etc), but I do think combining inexperience with young people who are prone to peer pressure and want to impress their mates etc does mean that young inexperienced drivers are the most likely candidates to have an accident.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP
the bottom line is that most new drivers drive like prats, and nearly all are vastly inexperienced - very few have even driven on a motorway!

in my opinion, theres nothing to be done about it. The only way they will slow down is when someone they know dies, or when they have a brown pant moment themselves.

---

I crashed my first 50bhp 1.0L car.

Never crashed my next car 105bhp 106 XSi or current car 130bhp "tail happy" MGF (which I had when I was 19).

I've had 3 accidents in two years.. first and foremost. I have 23 years of driving experience with a car. I have had my bike license for 15 years and my advanced driving license for 2 years.

Within the last 2 years I have visibly noticed the attitudes of drivers deteriorate to one of almost total disregard for other road users in cars, dont start me on bikes! One my way home today I covered 150 miles. 3 accidents all 4x4's two with caravans. Both 4x4's had "GONE OVER" the central reservation posisbly due to the lovely shape of the bullbars on the front aiding it. Both had apparently jack-knifed - meaning lack of braking distance!

IMHO - drivers 60+ should be made to re-sit a driving test and pass before they are allowed back on the road. 4x4's should be banned on the motorways - they are a liability to other road users. More importantly - bad driving practise - such as tailgating and poor lane discipline should be considered a worse offence than speeding! How much money does the result of sitting in traffic for hours cost? This and the potential loss of life...

Oh hang on - I just remembered why... speeders are easier to catch!

BTW - before anyone jumps on my back for my poor accident record - 1 was my fault. A tailgater distracting me!!! That and doing 50K/annum that's 1 accident every 3 years by the national average!

[Edited on 27-5-05 by Hellfire]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
I've had 3 accidents in two years.. first and foremost. I have 23 years of driving experience with a car. I have had my bike license for 15 years and my advanced driving license for 2 years.

Within the last 2 years I have visibly noticed the attitudes of drivers deteriorate to one of almost total disregard for other road users in cars, dont start me on bikes! One my way home today I covered 150 miles. 3 accidents all 4x4's two with caravans. Both 4x4's had "GONE OVER" the central reservation posisbly due to the lovely shape of the bullbars on the front aiding it. Both had apparently jack-knifed - meaning lack of braking distance!

IMHO - drivers 60+ should be made to re-sit a driving test and pass before they are allowed back on the road. 4x4's should be banned on the motorways - they are a liability to other road users. More importantly - bad driving practise - such as tailgating and poor lane discipline should be considered a worse offence than speeding! How much money does the result of sitting in traffic for hours cost? This and the potential loss of life...

Oh hang on - I just remembered why... speeders are easier to catch!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyharding
I agree with you 100% and would go as far as to support driving re-tests every 5 years!

---

I think one way of trying to ensure consistent safe driving is to resit your driving test regularly as has been suggested.
However for novice drivers the tests should be closer together. Maybe 1st resit after six month period, then twelve month gap and so on until a five year period is acheived.
Any accidents puts you back one or two stages.
This would hopefully encourage novices to think more about the standard of their driving rather than forget it as soon as test is passed.
This together with limiting power and speed for novices, should help.

Personally I think that everyone should go through a probationary period on mopeds or scooters before being allowed to drive a car. Make them realise how vulnerable they are before they are given the weapon.

Just through curiosity how many of you have ever bought an updated Highway Code since passing your test? I would imagine the average to be higher here than in general.


A poor handling car can be far more educational than a high powered or safe one. I had the fortune to learn in a MK1 Capri and learnt all about oversteer and understeer in a short period. Heavy, underpowered, lousy traction and great fun. Those were the days!

I bet that if everyone on this site resat their driving test then 99% would fail. How many of you cross your hands when steering? I bet most of you do... (I nearly failed my test for that). Most people would fail on a combination of minors, as we all get into bad habits. Its just another hassle, that at the end of the day isnt worth it. Just imagine how f&*ked you would be if you failed and had to wait a month for a resit!

I would encourage people to take some form of advanced driving test to hone their observation skills (this is pretty much all it teaches).

David

quote:

---

Just imagine how f&*ked you would be if you failed and had to wait a month for a resit!

---

That's why you'd do the retest before your old one ran out. Like your MOT. Then if you fail you have a safety net.

---

flak monkey - 27/5/05 at 07:17 PM

Meh. I still dont agree. You can behave perfectly on a test, and still be a menace when you are out on your own. Simple as that. Theres no way of controlling the quality of driving, without constant monitoring.

There are good and bad drivers. Some bad drivers will slowly become better drivers, some wont. Theres nothing you can do to stop the bad drivers on the road.

My grandad got his liscence in the army during WW2. His test consisted of 'get in that truck and drive it down that hill'. Passed, one licence. He later went on to hold a PSV and HGV licence, and only had about 3 minor accidents in his driving career. Proof that driving tests dont determine the quality of the driver...

David

---

Hellfire - 27/5/05 at 08:48 PM

Let's put things in perspective... the UK has the safest roads in Europe. (Stats from 5Live!) I think it's an ideal opportunity for this government to do something useful and impose a regular driving assesment - not necessarily a 'pass' or 'fail' unless you're over 60. It needn't be a full driver test just an assesment... with recomendations.

My company imposes better driving skills to reduce insurance premiums. We have to go on a refresher every two years to keep the discounts. I think that is a cracking incentive to improve your driving skills. I'm lucky in as much that the company pays for this. However, that doesn't mean to say I'm a good driver, just a better one... it perhaps makes me even more cautious than I should be, thereby making me a more consiencious driver. I think everyone would benefit by doing one of these courses.

---

JoelP - 27/5/05 at 09:00 PM

seeing the driving in gran canaria really did make me feel better about englands roads...

[Edited on 27/5/05 by JoelP]

---

phelpsa - 27/5/05 at 09:49 PM

I vote stronger punishments when you get it wrong, like driving bans etc.

I agree with Phil, why should we suffer for others wrongs?

Adam

---

Peteff - 27/5/05 at 10:34 PM

My last nearly was a couple of months ago. I pulled out in front of someone on a roundabout as they were indicating to turn off at the previous exit. It was the only car out of the ones on the roundabout that was using indicators so I assumed they meant what they were signalling.

---

JoelP - 27/5/05 at 11:15 PM

thats what happened with my moped incident... he apolloguised profusely at the scene, and then sued me

---

Ferg - 28/5/05 at 08:05 AM

quote:

---

Originally incorrectly spelt then posted by clbarclay

Freg
The boys in the care if front/behind are just as bad as the mates in the car, if not worse because they start to race each other.

---

Oh very true, but it's a damage limitation thing isn't it. There's little I can do about them, that has to be up to him, but reducing the number IN the car can only be a good thing.

---

britishtrident - 28/5/05 at 03:27 PM

Some drivers get worse as they get older most (up to a certain age) get safe. Young driver good or bad drive mainly based on his or her reactions to what they see ahead, older drivers drive more on anticipation based on past experience --- to drive totally based on one or the other is unsafe.

To a large extent it based on perception of risk, near me there is a very nasty blind corner on a very narrow road that is used as cut through by comuters. The odds of meeting a car comming the otherway on that corner doing something truly daft are perhaps 1000 to 1. A younger driver see those odds as relatively low risk and takes the corner faster using more of the road.
I have already been round that corner perhaps 5,000 times in 30 years and have encountered true idiots on that stretch of road hence regard the same 1000 to 1 as very short odds.

---

stephen_gusterson - 28/5/05 at 07:18 PM

my first car nearly killed me (or i nearly used it to kill myself). It was a slow as heck 34 hp mini. still went fast enought to hit a tree and put me out of action for 3 months.

my 17 year old has a 947cc saxo. cost 1375 to insure this 50hp beast. Would it not have made more sense for ins co not to restrict new drivers to use tiny flimsy cars on grounds of cost. Anything much bigger than a saxo was ballistic money.

In my view, most people's ideas of their driving skills are way too inflated.

i have had discussions in the pasts on here that by their nature (small light high power) locosts are dangerous. As arguments back ive had people are skilled drivers, know what they are doing, and are too careful to have an accident.

there have been a good few cars on here stuffed into barriers in the last few months.

Putting P plates might not do too much to restirct a new driver. Remember a driver in their first two years of full license can be knocked back to provisional if they get six points. dont seem to do much.

also, the bike test needs you to jump thro several hoops nowadays to pass - still doesnt stop the wanK"£rs I see often, taking chances, weaving on motorways.

ego and adrenalin + lack of skill with a big of bad judgement = accident.

retaking driving tests every 5 years or so is a daft idea. passing a driving test teaches you very little real life driving skills in the first place. I agree with the statement earlier that 99% of people on here are likely to fail a retest cos its not driving skills that matter, its doing what the test requires that gets you a pass. Just imagine getting a fail - thats tantamount to a ban on dirvin and how would you get to work and earn money to live?

Adam - putting stiffer penalties on people isnt the answer. Its easy to make the occasional driving error - who doesnt - and to get clobbered by the law just cos you made a minor error would soon have you off the road.



atb

steve

[Edited on 28/5/05 by stephen_gusterson]

---

Spyderman - 3/6/05 at 10:06 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson

1. In my view, most people's ideas of their driving skills are way too inflated.

2. retaking driving tests every 5 years or so is a daft idea. passing a driving test teaches you very little real life driving skills in the first place. I agree with the statement earlier that 99% of people on here are likely to fail a retest cos its not driving skills that matter, its doing what the test requires that gets you a pass. Just imagine getting a fail - thats tantamount to a ban on dirvin and how would you get to work and earn money to live?

3.Adam - putting stiffer penalties on people isnt the answer. Its easy to make the occasional driving error - who doesnt - and to get clobbered by the law just cos you made a minor error would soon have you off the road.

steve

---

1. Couldn't agree more, us included!
Willingness to learn new skills would tend to suppress this somewhat though!

2.Why daft? The test is not to teach you, but to test your knowledge/ability.
The simple solution to avoid losing your licence would be to pass your re-test. Simple!
If you are in danger of losing your licence then surely you are going to do everything in your power to comply with the conditions of the test?
It is not the DVLA or driving standards agency or whatever's responsibility to keep you on the road, it is yours.

3. Why would stiffer penalties worry you if you are not doing anything wrong? "Ah just in case"!
If you made a minor error I'm sure the Police dealing with you would use discretion. If not then go to court and plead!
Where do you draw the line between the occasional error and regular habits? Surely the ideal is no errors? Aiming lower is pointless. It would be like saying that killing X amount of people is acceptable, just don't kill Y.

Steps down off soapbox!

---

Hellfire - 3/6/05 at 10:23 PM

I cant understand why the negative comments on a 5 year re-test?

If you know your re-test is coming, what happens... you naturally improve your driving to such an extent that it becomes second nature on the day of the re-test therefore you pass. Following this, you still drive well until you fall back to your usual technique some time later. However, you have improved your driving for the period of time before and after the test albeit a small period of time. That time could be the time that you could have had an accident...

Look at it this way; if lots of people are either in the up-zone or down-zone from re-test the generic standard improves for us all. Therefore the insurance comapanies can make even more money from us!

As I have said before - my company promotes good driving standards and heavy influences us (makes us) go on driving courses. We get reduced insurance premiums because of it - the stats speak for themselves. This is almost like a re-test for us every two years or so. It obviously leaves traces of improved driving behind on every course we go on - therefore improving our standard overall. I'm not what i class the best driver - but I'm certainly not the worst!

[Edited on 3-6-05 by Hellfire]

---

stephen_gusterson - 3/6/05 at 10:44 PM

answers to 2 and 3....


2. a driving test as it is doenst actually make you a good driver. it simply tests that you can park in a space, can reverse around a corner, 3 point turn, blah de blah. what it doesnt do is teach icy weather driving, skid recovery, collision avoidance, and the kinda 'on the road' best practice you learn with time. Now, if you had to do a course that refreshed your knowlege, and you got to go on a skid pan, and brush up on useful skills, thats different. Getting failed cos you forgot to look over your sholder as you approached a junction and can no longer drive the 100 miles a day I have to do to work, would be a major blow. A 'refresher experience' would be a good idea. Lets face it, most experienced drivers on here have forgotten what you need to do to pass a test.

3. 'motorist persecution'. I remember Adam saying a couple months back that he and his dad had been on the bike and had cut in front of a truck or something to get off a slip road. If a cop was there, that would have been dangerous driving. As it was, there wasnt. Adams dad got a lucky break. Or Adams dad may well be having problems getting to work to live too. Speed cams - how many of us love them? If you want best safety practice, lets put them in every cats eye and set them for 31 mph. And double the fine.

Yes, there are rules. But I suspect at some time or another, we dont follow them as in our best judgement, we feel it would be fun not to. Its wrong, but 85 on a motorway in the right conditions feels nicer than 70.


Problem is, in the context of this thread, 17 year old drivers have crap judgement, little life experience, and little real knowlege of pain and danger.

crash a car into a tree at 19 like I did (and be very lucky to survive it) and you learn it hurts to make mistakes. Still, after time, the memory fades and you go back to 'normal'.



atb

steve

[Edited on 3/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]

---

JoelP - 3/6/05 at 11:10 PM

the retest doesnt have to be like the first driving test - poor mirror use could just be just something they remind you of at the end.

unfortunately, they things that they should look out for (like inappropriate use of speed, tailgating etc) are easily avoided by drivers who know they are wrong but dont want to change their regular driving habits.

most of the stuff that they teach for the driving test is actually useful stuff that you should keep doing forever. certainly the mirror use, and even feeding the wheel is there for a reason - can you honestly say that your hand has never slipped off the wheel when steering one handed? mine has twice that i remember, fortunately not at crucial moments. But when feeding the wheel between hands, you have never let go and can still go from lock to lock very quickly.

really, to accurately assess someones driving, they would have to not know you were there...

---

Spyderman - 5/6/05 at 01:01 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson

2. a driving test as it is doenst actually make you a good driver. it simply tests that you can park in a space, can reverse around a corner, 3 point turn, blah de blah. what it doesnt do is teach icy weather driving, skid recovery, collision avoidance, and the kinda 'on the road' best practice you learn with time. Now, if you had to do a course that refreshed your knowlege, and you got to go on a skid pan, and brush up on useful skills, thats different. Getting failed cos you forgot to look over your sholder as you approached a junction and can no longer drive the 100 miles a day I have to do to work, would be a major blow. A 'refresher experience' would be a good idea. Lets face it, most experienced drivers on here have forgotten what you need to do to pass a test.

---

The test is nothing more than what it says, a "TEST". It is the training that takes you up to the test that is the important part. How do you asses the knowledge gained from the training without a "test"?
If you have a test coming up then it is in your own self interest to refresh your abilities and knowledge. It is not the Government or anybody else's responsibility to make sure you are up to standard, regardless of how far you have to travel for work!
Skid pan training is available, but as it's not compulsory hardly anyone takes it.
A refresher course would be good, but would you take one if you didn't have to?
If you had to pay for a refresher coarse that was done by assessment, then surely you would make sure your driving was of as high a standard as possible, so to pay for as minimal training as was necessary.
I have not forgotten what is involved with taking the test as I have had regular assessments and training (mostly paid for by my employer) due to the job I did. I covered a lot more than 100 miles a day, 6 days a week and made it my business to keep upto date with the changes in rules and regulations.

quote:

---

3. 'motorist persecution'. I remember Adam saying a couple months back that he and his dad had been on the bike and had cut in front of a truck or something to get off a slip road. If a cop was there, that would have been dangerous driving. As it was, there wasnt. Adams dad got a lucky break. Or Adams dad may well be having problems getting to work to live too.

---

Adams dad was lucky only in respect to the fact that he never caused an accident. To say you are lucky in not being caught commiting an offence is irresponsible. (I'm not implying Adams dad was commiting on offence.)
By that same logic we may as well change the law so that if you can avoid being caught for a year you can get away with murder! Similar to the rules for prosecution of motoring offences.

quote:

---

Speed cams - how many of us love them? If you want best safety practice, lets put them in every cats eye and set them for 31 mph. And double the fine.

---

As has already been discussed speed cameras are for revenue generation not road safety.

quote:

---

Yes, there are rules. But I suspect at some time or another, we dont follow them as in our best judgement, we feel it would be fun not to. Its wrong, but 85 on a motorway in the right conditions feels nicer than 70.


Problem is, in the context of this thread, 17 year old drivers have crap judgement, little life experience, and little real knowlege of pain and danger.
crash a car into a tree at 19 like I did (and be very lucky to survive it) and you learn it hurts to make mistakes. Still, after time, the memory fades and you go back to 'normal'.

---

Agreed, but allowing a teenager to crash his/her car on the highways is not the right way to gain experience. Experience should be gained from training. The Police don't send their drivers crashing into trees to get them experienced! (might be a good idea though!)

Terry

Sorry for the long threads, but it is a subject I feel strongly about!

---

MkIndy7 - 5/6/05 at 06:59 PM

Bit of an unusual twist on things here and yes suprise suprise from somebody young, Have you ever considered a power cap could be a dangerous thing in certain circumstances.

When you try overtaking something on a hill and then struggle to get around it, but other cars have already started overtaking yup your stuck! admittedly driver error in the 1st place as you misjudged that you thought you could get round it.
( a bit like that 5th gear test i think it was "time exposed to danger" test when they were overtalking a lorry)

Now this is going to sound really daft and i'll take some stick for it but, Wouldn't NOS just be perfect for this to get you out of a situation, not to use it to put you in 1 in the 1st place.

Although driver inexperience has caused this(which your always going to have), surely a power cap would hinder them further.

---

Noodle - 5/6/05 at 07:26 PM

Could be evolution.

Neil.

*Ducks for cover*

---

stephen_gusterson - 5/6/05 at 10:13 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP
can you honestly say that your hand has never slipped off the wheel when steering one handed?

---

can you honestly say you could take collision avoidance, or control a tank slapper, skid on ice, by feeding the wheel?

atb

steve

---

stephen_gusterson - 5/6/05 at 10:19 PM

spyderman.


I wasnt suggesting people need to crash into trees to learn! It was an illustration that youth thinks its indestructable until something mortal happens. In your teens you think that life is forever and death is a zillion years away at 85 or some such age. Not an over zealous use of throttle coming home with yer mates on a wet bend. (that wasnt my accidnet scenario btw).

speed cams...................

i dont like speed cameras. But i can see places where they are of benefit.

Personally, I think the revenue generation thing is a bit of bollox. its insignifcant.

1m fines a year is 60m quid.

there are 28m vehicles on the road - lest assume they are all lowly emssion cars at 120 quid road tax each.

Thats 3360m friggin quid revenue a year!

and by annoying lots of people and vote risking with speed cams, they get to make another 60m. They would make more than that by putting up road tax by 3 quid a vehicle.


I am against naany state speed cams, but there are places they really ought to be.

The argument that they are revenue generators is just complete guff - only fully realised by myself when I just did that calculation.

BTW - in that 60m revenue, you have to take out the cost of all the cams, lasers, vans, staff to operate them, the paper processing system. I recon that very little is actually made from speeding fines in signifcant terms.

atb

steve

[Edited on 5/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]

[Edited on 5/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]

---

stephen_gusterson - 5/6/05 at 10:24 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by MkIndy7
Bit of an unusual twist on things here and yes suprise suprise from somebody young, Have you ever considered a power cap could be a dangerous thing in certain circumstances.

When you try overtaking something on a hill and then struggle to get around it, but other cars have already started overtaking yup your stuck! admittedly driver error in the 1st place as you misjudged that you thought you could get round it.
( a bit like that 5th gear test i think it was "time exposed to danger" test when they were overtalking a lorry)

Now this is going to sound really daft and i'll take some stick for it but, Wouldn't NOS just be perfect for this to get you out of a situation, not to use it to put you in 1 in the 1st place.

Although driver inexperience has caused this(which your always going to have), surely a power cap would hinder them further.

---

OR,

NOS

would ensure that you went into the front of that truck just that little bit especially faster.

atb

steve


How would you stop people pushing boost buttons for a laff when they felt like it? Like an old vid game when you get 3 boosts per race?

Id prefer a hyperspace button

---

MkIndy7 - 5/6/05 at 10:29 PM

Suppose its the old case of the Irresponsable idiots would use it all the time
and only rarely would it help somebody that found themselves in an "unfortunate" situation and needed a bit more power.

---

indykid - 6/6/05 at 07:10 PM

from my driving lessons, i learnt enough to allow me to pass my test first time with 4 minors. it's better than any of my friends got, but i still don't profess to be a perfect driver.
however, you can't become a perfect driver from taking your test over and over. all that would do would be to make you really good at reversing round corners.

it's the structured approach that hellfire talks about that would be of most use in the real world. the standard test does not assess drivers to a high enough degree, and the ares of assessment need to be widened.

so what if you can pass your driving test? it won't help you when a kid runs out infront of you and you have to stop sharpish in a car with no abs. there's no mention of cadence braking anymore as it's assumed you'll never need to know......evrthing has abs.........doesn't it?

many of my friends, will potter off into the sunset, with their test certificate in hand, and never think about driving skills again. what does it matter, they've got a piece of paper to say they can drive.

since my test, i've tried to find out braking performance, limits of adhesion etc etc of the car i drive, and having found them drive well within those limts. it's the mentality of the driver, and willingness to learn that determines their competence as much as anything.

[facetious bit]and anyway just because you've held your license longer than me, what's to say you're a better driver than me?
a friend of my parents is 40 odd, but no one will get in the car gladly with him because he is a liability, yet has not had a serious accident to my knowledge in his driving life.[/facetious bit]

i just think it's time we stop discriminating against people just because they're young.
it's bad enough that my insurance for the indy will be nearly 8 times what some pay, without you telling me i shouldn't be able to drive it.

gotta go now. i've turned green and my t shirt's split clean off me
tom

---