MP: multiple offenders should be banned from powerful cars
Discussion
AMG Merc said:
Don't some countries limit the type of car you can drive for so much time after you've passed your test? Australia perhaps?
Yes. IIRC, no V8s, no V12s, no forced induction, no high performance sixes, no performance mods, and a power/weight limlt for "P platers".I think the Aussie problem may be exacerbated by the way their insurance works (and by the Stobie poles, if there are any left standing).
Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 29th November 16:28
AMG Merc said:
Don't some countries limit the type of car you an drive for so much time after you've passed your test? Australia perhaps?
This would be my preference, say 1 litre until you're 2 years in (special exceptions for some people like racing drivers).Currently, any rich idiot can buy their 17 year old sprog a Bugatti Veyron and away he goes...? Ludicrous!
Jim1556 said:
This would be my preference, say 1 litre until you're 2 years in (special exceptions for some people like racing drivers).
Currently, any rich idiot can buy their 17 year old sprog a Bugatti Veyron and away he goes...? Ludicrous!
I wouldn't have exceptions. A racing driver can stick to the same rules as everyone else on the road. Drive what he/she likes on the track.Currently, any rich idiot can buy their 17 year old sprog a Bugatti Veyron and away he goes...? Ludicrous!
I would make it age related. New drivers under 25 are restricted to low cc cars for 2 yrs or until they hit 25, whichever comes first. When you're over 25 it makes no odds. I know a few people who have passed in their 40s and gone straight to driving spouses nice car with no issues.
It's an age thing more than an experience thing.
Jim1556 said:
This would be my preference, say 1 litre until you're 2 years in (special exceptions for some people like racing drivers).
Currently, any rich idiot can buy their 17 year old sprog a Bugatti Veyron and away he goes...? Ludicrous!
1l fiestas can be tuned to a decent power though. Engine CC means nothing it should if it was be done on power to weight ratio.Currently, any rich idiot can buy their 17 year old sprog a Bugatti Veyron and away he goes...? Ludicrous!
I wouldn't do anything about engine capacity. It's largely meaningless, especially when so many cars are turbocharged. You can get a 1.6 Peugeot RCZ with anything from 156 to 270bhp. 270bhp from a 1.6 in an RCZ isn't comparable to 120bhp from a 1.6 in a 3008. Pushing new drivers into one litre city cars ignores that they could be adults with kids to ferry about - large, safe cars tend not to have one litre engines.
If I were minded to do anything, I would require that the third party and own risks components of car insurance were split, and then cap the maximum premium for third party cover. Can't get cover for £x, can't have the car. Whether that's because you're young and it's a GTR, or because you're elderly and have bumped half of Tesco's car park, or because you've got 9 points, or a spent DD ban.
If I were minded to do anything, I would require that the third party and own risks components of car insurance were split, and then cap the maximum premium for third party cover. Can't get cover for £x, can't have the car. Whether that's because you're young and it's a GTR, or because you're elderly and have bumped half of Tesco's car park, or because you've got 9 points, or a spent DD ban.
Jim1556 said:
This would be my preference, say 1 litre until you're 2 years in (special exceptions for some people like racing drivers).
I remember when I was a learner rider seeing local celebrity (now MotoGP front runner) Scott Redding riding in Quedgeley. He had to ride a 50cc like all the other 16 year olds.The safest car I had driven when I was young, was my Calibra Turbo that I bought when I was 25. Safe to overtake in, massive stopping power and neutral all wheel drive handling (difficult to corner too fast for the available grip).
Jasandjules said:
I could drive a 1l Micra at 80mph past a school if I wanted. The power of the car is not relevant to the intent of the driver to do dangerous things.
This is the basic premise behind the US gun control argument - guns (cars) don't kill people, people do. It also illustrates the polar opposites in point of view between those who see it as the removal of a right, and those who see it as common sense.mpkaye said:
This is the basic premise behind the US gun control argument - guns (cars) don't kill people, people do. It also illustrates the polar opposites in point of view between those who see it as the removal of a right, and those who see it as common sense.
More like thinking that restricting weapons to smaller but still lethal calibres will make a difference.otolith said:
More like thinking that restricting weapons to smaller but still lethal calibres will make a difference.
There are failings in every analogous device you could care to conjure. For example... the analogy might be vehicles and weapons, and then you have an argument that says someone can't have a car, only a bike. And someone can't have a gun, only a stick.Ultimately it's about personal liberty versus social risk. Young people or people with a previous history of accidents in powerful cars are a high risk. We know this. Insurance companies have been telling us this for years. Similarly, allowing all and sundry access to guns (of any kind) is high risk.
As has been mentioned, we already acknowledge this when it comes to riding a motorcycle, which is a much less libertarian approach than if we did the same with cars. After all, you're much more likely to harm only yourself on a motorcycle, and more likely to harm yourself _and_ others in a car.
otolith said:
Do we know that young drivers become a high risk when they acquire powerful cars, rather than that high risk young drivers tend to covet powerful cars? Does keeping them from getting into such cars make them safer, or merely harder to identify and charge appropriately for insurance?
I'm pretty sure the statistics will be easy to collect simply by virtue of the fact that many young drivers are priced out of the powerful car market, both the asset/finance cost itself and the cost of the insurance. It doesn't cost over £1000 for a young driver to insure a basic Fiesta for no reason, they are high risk full stop.In any case, this argument has already been lost with motorcycles. If you want to ride anything over a 125cc you have to be 19 and a minimum of 21 with 2 years experience to ride a big bike. If you accept the argument that a car driver is more likely to injure an innocent party in the event of an accident than a motorcyclist, then you also have to accept some level of restricted access similar to motorcycles.
That assumes that the restrictions on motorcycles are well founded. I also suspect that a big bike is a handful in the way that performance cars were before they were electronically neutered. I would trust a sensible new driver not to be an idiot with a quick Audi, I wouldn't trust his skills with a Cerbera.
otolith said:
That assumes that the restrictions on motorcycles are well founded. I also suspect that a big bike is a handful in the way that performance cars were before they were electronically neutered. I would trust a sensible new driver not to be an idiot with a quick Audi, I wouldn't trust his skills with a Cerbera.
Most big bikes have electronic aids now too, anti-wheelie, ABS, traction control, etc. I think the main point about new (especially young) drivers is that they are not experienced enough to know where the boundaries of "sensible" are. Electronic aids don't trump physics or inexperienced decisions.otolith said:
I would trust a sensible new driver not to be an idiot with a quick Audi, I wouldn't trust his skills with a Cerbera.
But someone who buys a Cerbera is probably more worthy of your trust in paying some attention to their driving than someone who buys a quick Audi.Or at least, if they don't, are far more likely to be backwards in a ditch somewhere long before you'd be at risk of encountering them on the road.
mpkaye said:
Most big bikes have electronic aids now too, anti-wheelie, ABS, traction control, etc. I think the main point about new (especially young) drivers is that they are not experienced enough to know where the boundaries of "sensible" are. Electronic aids don't trump physics or inexperienced decisions.
To be honest, I think youth is more of a problem than inexperience. It's inexperience that would make me wary of a new driver in a TVR, and immaturity that would make me wary of many young drivers in a modern performance car. Attitudes to risk and reward. Still, I don't think the car causes the attitude, I think it reflects it. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff