RE: Camera policy fails younger drivers: report
Monday 3rd April 2006
Camera policy fails younger drivers?The Times today reports that the young driver fatality risk has doubled in just five years. They're not being saved by more speed cameras.
Camera policy fails younger drivers: report
Fall in casualties masks sharp rise in crashes by under-20s
Camera policy fails younger drivers?
According to the report, the death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years. This bucks the trend of the last few years which has seen a steady improvement in road safety across the general population. Despite a tougher driving test -- though one that still doesn't cover many daily driving situations -- the improvement in the safety stats masks a sharp upturn in the number of younger drivers -- those under 20 -- having fatal crashes, according to the report.
Road safety campaign Safe Speed said that it believes that road safety policy is letting them, and the rest of us, down. According to Safe Speed, its research confirms that road safety is founded upon skills, attitudes and responsibilities. The campaign said that, in large part these factors have been delivered through a culture that has resulted in the UK having the safest roads in the world, founded on the following principles:
- If a driver has the right skills he will recognise risk.
- If a driver has the right attitudes and beliefs he will avoid risk.
- If a driver has the right sense of responsibility he will not cause risk.
Safe Speed said it believes that making young drivers safer needs to start in schools.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "We need to explain to them the nature of the skills and responsibilities required for using our roads. At present we're doing nothing like it - we can't make safe drivers by giving them rules to follow, instead we must teach them how to survive.
"Road safety is not a simple matter of vehicle speeds, instead it's a complex matter of psychology. Current policy based on speed cameras sends entirely the wrong messages and puts drivers under pressure -- it's bad psychology and doomed to fail."
"Many drivers see that policy is way off-track and turn off to all the road safety messages. Young drivers are especially badly affected because they do not have experience to fall back on.
"Safe Speed demands an end to road safety based on simple legal compliance and demands psychologically sound policies based on accurate information leading to improved risk management. We must measure and manage our national road safety culture. And we must restore traffic policing and ensure that their role is dealing with risk-causing behaviour, not simple legal compliance."
Links
Discussion
I suspect that many people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford a car now can hence have the opportunity to crash and kill themselves. Also as the country becomes more affluent the youth of today can afford C2 VTRs instead of the old Nova SR. Cars are faster and the false impression of greater safety behind the wheel leads to risks taken which wouldn't be in old Nova.
My theory anyway.
My theory anyway.
It would be interesting to know whether the increase in deaths is among those who are uninsured/untaxed/unlicenced. We could then understand whether it's a general problem with all young drivers, or just the hardcore minority who flout the law and therefore endanger themselves and others.
This is something that I have spoken to people whom I know as my argument against speed camera's for a long time. Young drivers (like myself) are so shit scared of loosing their licences especially in the first two years, (as you can only have 6 points before you are disqualified and have to re-take your test, I am six months outside my two year probation personally) as soon as they see a speed camera or sign to indicate their presence they instantly do the speed limit, now this is not a bad thing, if it were not for the fact that an inexperienced driver in this situation spends most of his/her time looking at the speedo, not at the road ahead. As consequence of not concentrating on the road is a crash, mounting a curb or worse, this is one of the reasons younger people crash. But I do have to agree with the other points made before me also, speed cameras don't stop drink/drug drivers causing accidents. Yes young people can afford faster cars today rather than the slower machines of 20-30 years ago, this is why limiting all inexperienced drivers whom are still in their two year probation to a certain power to weight ratio, rather than what insurance they can afford.
Matt
>> Edited by matmoxon on Monday 3rd April 13:12
Matt
>> Edited by matmoxon on Monday 3rd April 13:12
i think c2 vtr's are a lot safer than Nova's
I'd rather young drivers were in the newer cars to be honest.
Simple fact is the driving test is inadequate for the modern driver.
I have had a few friends and my younger brother recently pass their driving tests.
Quite simply they lack any awareness of road conditions, speed of other vehicles, width of their vehicles, how to deal with obstacles that impeed progress - roadworks, slow drivers, cyclists etc
But they can do a three point turn and reverse round a corner
I'd rather young drivers were in the newer cars to be honest.
Simple fact is the driving test is inadequate for the modern driver.
I have had a few friends and my younger brother recently pass their driving tests.
Quite simply they lack any awareness of road conditions, speed of other vehicles, width of their vehicles, how to deal with obstacles that impeed progress - roadworks, slow drivers, cyclists etc
But they can do a three point turn and reverse round a corner
matmoxon said:
This is something that I have spoken to people whom I know as my argument against speed camera's for a long time. Young drivers (like myself) are so shit scared of loosing their licences especially in the first two years, (as you can only have 6 points before you are disqualified and have to re-take your test, I am six months outside my two year probation personally) as soon as they see a speed camera or sign to indicate their presence they instantly do the speed limit, now this is not a bad thing, if it were not for the fact that an inexperienced driver in this situation spends most of his/her time looking at the speedo, not at the road ahead. As consequence of not concentrating on the road is a crash, mounting a curb or worse, this is one of the reasons younger people crash. But I do have to agree with the other points made before me also, speed cameras don't stop drink/drug drivers causing accidents. Yes young people can afford faster cars today rather than the slower machines of 20-30 years ago, this is why limiting all inexperienced drivers whom are still in their two year probation to a certain power to weight ratio, rather than what insurance they can afford.
Matt
>> Edited by matmoxon on Monday 3rd April 13:12
Well put young man...
Some people and i don`t mean me think that most accidents involving old people are caused by the old people.
The other side of the coin could be that most accidents involving young people are caused by young people.
Both are sweeping statements, both are probably incorrect.
The insurance companies get it right but that means shit old drivers get cheap insurance and good young drivers pay a fortune.
"Lifes a bitch then you die"
matmoxon said:
Yes young people can afford faster cars today rather than the slower machines of 20-30 years ago, this is why limiting all inexperienced drivers whom are still in their two year probation to a certain power to weight ratio, rather than what insurance they can afford.
Hmmmm, that just isn't going to work. I know several people who got in grp5 insurance cars and smashed them to pieces and other cars around them, several months after passing their test.
I know others who died in old 1.1 Nova's.
There is no limit to the bad driving a young person can display, irrespective of the car they do it in.
It's all down to the driver and their attitude, not the car!
Bad attitude = trouble in anyones book!
Dave
Did anyone see Mary "death threats" Williams response on the lunchtime news?
She wants more tracking of young drivers with speed limiters and speed this, that, and the other.
No other aspect of safety interests her and her ilk, theyre simply fixated to the point of crassness.
She is without doubt an utter moron.
and breathe.
She wants more tracking of young drivers with speed limiters and speed this, that, and the other.
No other aspect of safety interests her and her ilk, theyre simply fixated to the point of crassness.
She is without doubt an utter moron.
and breathe.We are also failing to realise that there are more cars and people on the roads so of course the figures are going to go up.
It is becomming more and more a necessity for young people to drive now as well due to the awful public transport system we have.
Loose the lorries - put freight on the rails... but thats a different story
It is becomming more and more a necessity for young people to drive now as well due to the awful public transport system we have.
Loose the lorries - put freight on the rails... but thats a different story
This is just another useless "Speed Kills" arguement - young or old, it is INAPPROPRIATE SPEED that kills - NOT speed itself....
100plus mph on a clear, empty, well sighted, dry motorway, with an experienced driver at the weheel of a capable and well maintained car at 6am on a Sunday is NOT DANGEROUS!!!
30mph outside a busy school at 830am, ice on the road, fog limiting visibility, talking on a mobile (and/or putting on makeup/eating a sandwich etc etc) no lights on, badly maintained car with an inattentive drive IS DANGEROUS!!
Which one will the camera catch?
Answers on a post card.
100plus mph on a clear, empty, well sighted, dry motorway, with an experienced driver at the weheel of a capable and well maintained car at 6am on a Sunday is NOT DANGEROUS!!!
30mph outside a busy school at 830am, ice on the road, fog limiting visibility, talking on a mobile (and/or putting on makeup/eating a sandwich etc etc) no lights on, badly maintained car with an inattentive drive IS DANGEROUS!!
Which one will the camera catch?
Answers on a post card.
Deltafox said:
Did anyone see Mary "death threats" Williams response on the lunchtime news?
She wants more tracking of young drivers with speed limiters and speed this, that, and the other.
No other aspect of safety interests her and her ilk, theyre simply fixated to the point of crassness.
She is without doubt an utter moron.
Silly cow, some people never learn!
I have a theory about young drivers from my own experience of being one.
They say the fastest car in the world is a hire car, right?
It's the same with young drivers - chances are when you're 17-21, you're driving one of your parents cars. As you don't have to pay for the shagged-out engine, clutch and so on, you give it hell, you're more likely to be reckless and so on, mainly because subconsciously, you know it isn't your own car, you don't have the same sense of pride in your own driving.
I reckon the best way around this is actually to lower the cost of insuring cars in groups 1-3 considerably, and for car dealers to take more of an interest in young drivers by offering genuinely cheap second-hand deals (I'm amazed how many teenagers on part-time shelf-stacker jobs think that spending £7k on a supermini constitutes good value), whilst recommending special limited-mileage agreements with insurance companies willing to take on younger drivers, would encourage young people to learn about motoring and respect for their own car and the road itself, rather than just 'driving' and 'keeping to the speed limit'.
They say the fastest car in the world is a hire car, right?
It's the same with young drivers - chances are when you're 17-21, you're driving one of your parents cars. As you don't have to pay for the shagged-out engine, clutch and so on, you give it hell, you're more likely to be reckless and so on, mainly because subconsciously, you know it isn't your own car, you don't have the same sense of pride in your own driving.
I reckon the best way around this is actually to lower the cost of insuring cars in groups 1-3 considerably, and for car dealers to take more of an interest in young drivers by offering genuinely cheap second-hand deals (I'm amazed how many teenagers on part-time shelf-stacker jobs think that spending £7k on a supermini constitutes good value), whilst recommending special limited-mileage agreements with insurance companies willing to take on younger drivers, would encourage young people to learn about motoring and respect for their own car and the road itself, rather than just 'driving' and 'keeping to the speed limit'.
will.naylor said:
We are also failing to realise that there are more cars and people on the roads so of course the figures are going to go up.
In the 1930`s there were about 1.5 million vehicles on the roads and more people were killed than now.
At the last count there were more than 20 million vehicles on the road.
You improve safety by making changes, if you banned smoking in cars the figures would come down.
How would it be if we banned left handed people from driving. (only joking)
>> Edited by slowly slowly on Monday 3rd April 17:11
A quote from Safespeed "..."Road safety is not a simple matter of vehicle speeds, instead it's a complex matter of psychology. Current policy based on speed cameras sends entirely the wrong messages and puts drivers under pressure -- it's bad psychology and doomed to fail..."
This is the crux of the whole problem. People who are opposed to this country's (well, the government and local authorities mainly - and other 'useful idiots') speed-obsession have been saying for years that cameras are mainly catching the safer driver. ...and still the pro-camera people try to befuddle us all with their twaddle, their spin and even dodgy statistics.
>> Edited by james_j on Monday 3rd April 16:29
This is the crux of the whole problem. People who are opposed to this country's (well, the government and local authorities mainly - and other 'useful idiots') speed-obsession have been saying for years that cameras are mainly catching the safer driver. ...and still the pro-camera people try to befuddle us all with their twaddle, their spin and even dodgy statistics.
>> Edited by james_j on Monday 3rd April 16:29
except for motorways the roads are no longer policed, what is the chance of being stopped and given a warning for blind corner overtaking , jumping red lights etc when there are no police patrol cars.people only get warned / prosecuted for such lunatic driving as a result of an accident. for gods sake get back to giving warinigs and document producers for poor driving as used to happen , the this needs the idiots in control to stop throwing money at cameras and put the police back in patrol cars.
How about we sotp demanding authoritarian restrictions on young drivers. As long as third party deaths injuries caused by teenagers don't go up then the personal choice to risk your life and licence by driving like a tw*t should go unmolested. Nobody forces these people to behave the way they do.
From experience a small minority of young drivers (who seem to cause the most crashes) arehabitually reckless. Often with these people the car they have a serious accident in is their second third or fourth. If the nanny state HAS to make an attempt to save young people from themselvs it should make any young drivers that have a crash, for whatever reason, to pay for and attend extra training to be allowed to drive again. If they crash after that, serious questions should be asked about their competance. That way young PHers don't have to suffer underneath numpties boots.
From experience a small minority of young drivers (who seem to cause the most crashes) arehabitually reckless. Often with these people the car they have a serious accident in is their second third or fourth. If the nanny state HAS to make an attempt to save young people from themselvs it should make any young drivers that have a crash, for whatever reason, to pay for and attend extra training to be allowed to drive again. If they crash after that, serious questions should be asked about their competance. That way young PHers don't have to suffer underneath numpties boots.
Twincam16 said:
I have a theory about young drivers from my own experience of being one.
They say the fastest car in the world is a hire car, right?
It's the same with young drivers - chances are when you're 17-21, you're driving one of your parents cars. As you don't have to pay for the shagged-out engine, clutch and so on, you give it hell, you're more likely to be reckless and so on, mainly because subconsciously, you know it isn't your own car, you don't have the same sense of pride in your own driving.
I reckon the best way around this is actually to lower the cost of insuring cars in groups 1-3 considerably, and for car dealers to take more of an interest in young drivers by offering genuinely cheap second-hand deals (I'm amazed how many teenagers on part-time shelf-stacker jobs think that spending £7k on a supermini constitutes good value), whilst recommending special limited-mileage agreements with insurance companies willing to take on younger drivers, would encourage young people to learn about motoring and respect for their own car and the road itself, rather than just 'driving' and 'keeping to the speed limit'.
I may be wrong, but I think this displays an inappropriate attitude to driving. It's not just having the right attitude to other road users and your own safety, it's treating your parents' car appropriately as well. If anything demonstrates that driving attitudes are simply an extension of our attitudes in the rest of our lives, this is it.
Peter Ward said:
I have a theory about young drivers from my own experience of being one.
They say the fastest car in the world is a hire car, right?
It's the same with young drivers - chances are when you're 17-21, you're driving one of your parents cars. As you don't have to pay for the shagged-out engine, clutch and so on, you give it hell, you're more likely to be reckless and so on, mainly because subconsciously, you know it isn't your own car, you don't have the same sense of pride in your own driving.
I reckon the best way around this is actually to lower the cost of insuring cars in groups 1-3 considerably, and for car dealers to take more of an interest in young drivers by offering genuinely cheap second-hand deals (I'm amazed how many teenagers on part-time shelf-stacker jobs think that spending £7k on a supermini constitutes good value), whilst recommending special limited-mileage agreements with insurance companies willing to take on younger drivers, would encourage young people to learn about motoring and respect for their own car and the road itself, rather than just 'driving' and 'keeping to the speed limit'.
I may be wrong, but I think this displays an inappropriate attitude to driving. It's not just having the right attitude to other road users and your own safety, it's treating your parents' car appropriately as well. If anything demonstrates that driving attitudes are simply an extension of our attitudes in the rest of our lives, this is it.
Well, we can say that with hindsight now, but back when a 17-year-old passes his test, if he just gets tossed the keys to his Mum's runabout, because it's cheaper to insure him as a named driver on her policy than it is for him to buy his own car, then whenever he's given the car, he'll max it out.
However, I know that if I was in a better position to buy my own car when I'd passed my test, no matter how meagre, I would always have had my own NCB and garage bills in the back of my mind when driving.
It's all very well talking about displaying the right or wrong attitude towards driving when you're young, but when you have just passed your test and you're raring to go, you need to be brought back to earth occasionally.
And as such, I don't think that bumping up insurance premiums to unattainable heights for young drivers helps them to understand the sense of responsibility involved in car ownership.
However, I've got my own ideas about the driving test. I reckon that, as it is, it should only qualify you for small FWD cars up to 1.4 litres/IG3, and you're restricted from using motorways. However, if you take an 'advanced' test, you should be afforded lower premiums, a wider selection of cars to use and faster roads to travel on.
Think about it - it would reduce insurance premiums for all of us.
Twincam16 said:
Think about it - it would reduce insurance premiums for all of us.
but would it really? Can't see the insurance companies cutting their prices, even if they end up paying out less...
and i would say that it could be anyone that cuts you up. i bet most of the time its a middle age person... because statistically there are more of them on the roads. younger people probably have more severe accidents because when they get it wrong they REALLY get it wrong- over exuberance/lack of experience.
its the attitude not specifically the age that is the problem. young people with something to proove, the amount of people who are too busy talking on the phone, turning round to their kids, and who have 'little willy' syndrome, or are just generally dozy and dont care about driving and just want to get where they are going regardless of everyone else.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff