AA wants to limit New Drivers
Discussion
The AA foundation reckons the increase in deaths in young people in cars is down to fewer taking their test and hence carrying more friends. When they crash they take more with them. Their answer?? Stop Young drivers carrying passengers and put a curfew on them. Doing that just leaves us with more drivers unable to gain experience. Here we are asking for better driver training and an organisation who should be listening to us, the experienced drivers fobs everybody off with a feeble answer to a problem created by the increasing expense of "paper" tests put on learners that are of limited value when actually driving.
That's backed up by the insurance companies, it seems..
My lad will be 17 this summer and we have been getting insurance quotes for his first car. Astronomical
However, a Clio or 206 DCi van is less than half the premium of the equivalent car. I don't think this holds true for more 'mature' drivers - what with van drivers having the reputation they do
The reason we were given for the lower premium ? Less passengers... The logic being, presumably, fewer injuries in the event of a prang and less encouragement to tank it from a car full of mates...
My lad will be 17 this summer and we have been getting insurance quotes for his first car. Astronomical
However, a Clio or 206 DCi van is less than half the premium of the equivalent car. I don't think this holds true for more 'mature' drivers - what with van drivers having the reputation they do
The reason we were given for the lower premium ? Less passengers... The logic being, presumably, fewer injuries in the event of a prang and less encouragement to tank it from a car full of mates...
Fair enough I say, but I just get frustrated because how are these people passing tests if they are still considered a high risk?
Clearly if the tests all meet a certain standard, and lots of young drivers don't crash, then we need to look at what post or pre-test factors are making them a higher risk.
Ie, being taught to pass the test, rather than being taught to be a good safe driver.
Peer groups of young Chav types thrashing it around in their mums Corsa etc.
I think limiting young people is unfair as a blanket attack. There are plenty of safe young drivers too, who drive their friends places. I remember going to Alton Towers and things with my mates as a driver. Would suck if we couldn't, or we had to drive individually
Thats environmentally friendly!
Dave
Clearly if the tests all meet a certain standard, and lots of young drivers don't crash, then we need to look at what post or pre-test factors are making them a higher risk.
Ie, being taught to pass the test, rather than being taught to be a good safe driver.
Peer groups of young Chav types thrashing it around in their mums Corsa etc.
I think limiting young people is unfair as a blanket attack. There are plenty of safe young drivers too, who drive their friends places. I remember going to Alton Towers and things with my mates as a driver. Would suck if we couldn't, or we had to drive individually
Thats environmentally friendly! Dave
Why not have some kind of halfway house where new drivers cannot take passengers for the first year after passing their test, and are then re-tested at the end of the year. I agree that some new drivers are dangerous and have accidents while showing off to the 6 friends they're carrying in the car, but equally they need to gain experience.
Any increase in deaths of young people isn't to do with the training.
Its to do with attitude.
There are those who will always drive within their abilities and limits (nowt to do with the car's limits).
There are those who, through bravado, will drive well beyond the their own capabilities and that of their vehicle.
What can you do about attitude? Its not just "driver training" that's required for our young people. Its "life training". People need to be taught that *thay* must take responsibility for their own actions and safety: that when they drive their passengers have put the care of their *lives* in their hands - and that that is a weighty duty.
Left after this will be those who simply don't give a shit. Evolution in action.
Its to do with attitude.
There are those who will always drive within their abilities and limits (nowt to do with the car's limits).
There are those who, through bravado, will drive well beyond the their own capabilities and that of their vehicle.
What can you do about attitude? Its not just "driver training" that's required for our young people. Its "life training". People need to be taught that *thay* must take responsibility for their own actions and safety: that when they drive their passengers have put the care of their *lives* in their hands - and that that is a weighty duty.
Left after this will be those who simply don't give a shit. Evolution in action.
Indeed. Plenty pass their test, but then go out the next day and drive like a tool!
Ideally TrafPol would help see such driving and curb it by banning those who have shown they can't be trusted.
Maybe the doubling of under 20 deaths has co-incided with a halving of TrafPol time on the roads?
Anyone have TrafPol on patrol figures. Actual time on station as it were?
Dave
Ideally TrafPol would help see such driving and curb it by banning those who have shown they can't be trusted.
Maybe the doubling of under 20 deaths has co-incided with a halving of TrafPol time on the roads?
Anyone have TrafPol on patrol figures. Actual time on station as it were?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Indeed. Plenty pass their test, but then go out the next day and drive like a tool!
This is true, I'm afraid - it was just amazing how many of my teenage daughters male friends smashed up their cars within a few mths of passing their tests. The house drives around our village are littered with the battered remains of cars that were 3rd party only.
It's definately more about personal attitude than age. I'm 19, been driving two years and I've never caused an accident, most of my friends are the same way. Can't think of one of my friends who has caused anything other than a minor prang.
I don't think it's even *too* relative to the power of the car, I think that the people who crash are probably just not experienced enough, don't drive often enough, so only letting them drive in daytime is a silly idea. Maybe they should make the pass plus compulsary, or make new test-passers have to do some sort of update test after 6 months or a year that makes sure they've not developed bad habits.
I don't think it's even *too* relative to the power of the car, I think that the people who crash are probably just not experienced enough, don't drive often enough, so only letting them drive in daytime is a silly idea. Maybe they should make the pass plus compulsary, or make new test-passers have to do some sort of update test after 6 months or a year that makes sure they've not developed bad habits.
Perhaps if they are driving Mum or Dads car the excess should go up by a hefty sum if Parent Not Present? If stolen they'll just leg it and deny everything anyway.
Don't know if there really is an answer to the irresponsible (as distinct from the inexperienced). My two are now in their twenties with clean records, apart from when daughter got shunted by a rubbernecker at an accident site. My own record at that age wasn't as good, though nothing prosecutable.
Don't know if there really is an answer to the irresponsible (as distinct from the inexperienced). My two are now in their twenties with clean records, apart from when daughter got shunted by a rubbernecker at an accident site. My own record at that age wasn't as good, though nothing prosecutable.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff