Unbelievable ...
Discussion
beyond rational said:
Why?
A minority ruin it for the majority so we punish all?
We need less stupid laws and should be tackling the cause of the carelessness and not trying to limit the death toll by impacting everyones lives.
A minority ruin it for the majority so we punish all?
We need less stupid laws and should be tackling the cause of the carelessness and not trying to limit the death toll by impacting everyones lives.
If it were an isolated incident we wouldn't need laws, it's when it's not that we have them changed.
vonhosen said:
beyond rational said:
Why?
A minority ruin it for the majority so we punish all?
We need less stupid laws and should be tackling the cause of the carelessness and not trying to limit the death toll by impacting everyones lives.
A minority ruin it for the majority so we punish all?
We need less stupid laws and should be tackling the cause of the carelessness and not trying to limit the death toll by impacting everyones lives.
If it were an isolated incident we wouldn't need laws, it's when it's not that we have them changed.
The number of passengers in the car is not the problem though is it? Its the way the car is driven and the risks that driver is willing to take that effects those passengers. Two less passengers may mean in the case of a fatal accident two less die, but what about the person they've hit? Or the train they have possibly derailed? Saying all young drivers should have less passengers is missing the real point, that being that risks like this should never be taken no matter how many in a car.
beyond rational said:
The number of passengers in the car is not the problem though is it? Its the way the car is driven and the risks that driver is willing to take that effects those passengers. Two less passengers may mean in the case of a fatal accident two less die, but what about the person they've hit? Or the train they have possibly derailed? Saying all young drivers should have less passengers is missing the real point, that being that risks like this should never be taken no matter how many in a car.
If you haven't got anyone else in the car there is no-one to show off to. The need or desire to impress others in the car is very real in certain demographic groups. Others not being there just makes that less likely.
beyond rational said:
So to that end, any number of passengers would be too many.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Both the young & motorcycle users are disproportional when it comes to their numbers & the frequency of their involvement in KSIs.
Naturally, they are then going to be a target in the drive to reduce KSIs. Because of the frequency of their involvement, the circumstances of them being involved in KSIs will be looked at.
Where that looks like, again disproportionally, cars full of youngsters are much more likely to be involved in them than single occupancy, that is likely to be a measure that will be explored in addressing the problem of their frequency in adverse events.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th November 07:15
You can't legislate for people who break the law - that's a total oxymoron and, if I might say, a typically Blairite strategy. People who break the law don't pay heed to the law, so introducing tighter legislation on younger drivers will just create new laws for the lawless to break, whilst also impinging on the freedoms of law abiding people. This diminution of freedom actually then encourages more law abiding people to break laws for which they have no respect. Therefore creating new legislation creates more criminals.
The only answer is to act more vigorously on existing laws - make sure there is more chance of law breakers being caught and more stringent penalties for them when they are dealt with.
The only answer is to act more vigorously on existing laws - make sure there is more chance of law breakers being caught and more stringent penalties for them when they are dealt with.
vonhosen said:
beyond rational said:
So to that end, any number of passengers would be too many.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Both the young & motorcycle users are disproportional when it comes to their numbers & the frequency of their involvement in KSIs.
Naturally, they are then going to be a target in the drive to reduce KSIs. Because of the frequency of their involvement, the circumstances of them being involved in KSIs will be looked at.
Where that looks like, again disproportionally, cars full of youngsters are much more likely to be involved in them than single occupancy, that is likely to be a measure that will be explored in addressing the problem of their frequency in adverse events.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th November 07:15
Out of interest, is the type of journey recorded? i.e social on the way to clubs versus social commute to college/uni?
Would you think that the solution, a convoy of four/five single occupant cars heading, meeting and leaving the same location would prove safer?
vonhosen said:
beyond rational said:
So to that end, any number of passengers would be too many.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Both the young & motorcycle users are disproportional when it comes to their numbers & the frequency of their involvement in KSIs.
Naturally, they are then going to be a target in the drive to reduce KSIs. Because of the frequency of their involvement, the circumstances of them being involved in KSIs will be looked at.
Where that looks like, again disproportionally, cars full of youngsters are much more likely to be involved in them than single occupancy, that is likely to be a measure that will be explored in addressing the problem of their frequency in adverse events.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th November 07:15
More to do with inexperience. Does not always follow that the opther passengers egged on the young driver. More - he made a seriously fatal error as driver due to inexperience.
You did say, after all, you could not judge the speed prior to the accident. You cannot then prove the kids lost it whilst "showing off". You can perhaps establish to some extent why that car left the road.. und I recall a gum chewin
PC Daniels of Cheshir's BBC Traffic Cops coming across a car which had left road on the Cat und Fiddle. The kids were OK. But the eagle eyed officer noted that the car had one worn tyre.. und reckoned that was part of the equation. He did not do the youngster for this.. gave him a very public lecture und an order to get the tyre sorted pronto! beyond rational said:
vonhosen said:
beyond rational said:
So to that end, any number of passengers would be too many.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Both the young & motorcycle users are disproportional when it comes to their numbers & the frequency of their involvement in KSIs.
Naturally, they are then going to be a target in the drive to reduce KSIs. Because of the frequency of their involvement, the circumstances of them being involved in KSIs will be looked at.
Where that looks like, again disproportionally, cars full of youngsters are much more likely to be involved in them than single occupancy, that is likely to be a measure that will be explored in addressing the problem of their frequency in adverse events.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th November 07:15
Out of interest, is the type of journey recorded? i.e social on the way to clubs versus social commute to college/uni?
Would you think that the solution, a convoy of four/five single occupant cars heading, meeting and leaving the same location would prove safer?
Nein... That could lead to racing each other
But the responsibility und continuous learning ethic should be spelled out more during the lesson stages ..und Pass Plus should be compulsory und not optional.
Difficult - but perhaps there ist also need to sift out "maturity/attitude" via the "Theory Part" of the test too.
Ist to do with attitude as well. Perhaps
a return to manners - with "please" und "thank you" und "holding the door for someone behind you" may be a good idea. I am not "offended" if someone hold a door for me - und I do so for anyone following me too. Ist very rude to let a door slam in someone's face - after all. Why an apparent rant on courtesy und manners?
because ist this lack of them which spill over into driving attitudes. Ist this "lack of courteous attitude" which lead to error und accidents. It need re-addressing und instilling into all...
Not that it seems particularly effective, given their road safety record, but I believe that in Australia and New Zealand that young drivers are not allowed to take more than n passengers after a certain time in the evening. If I recall correctly (and there's no saying I do) the reasoning is that young male drivers, when presented with a car full of their peers, drive like tossers.
CommanderJameson said:
Not that it seems particularly effective, given their road safety record, but I believe that in Australia and New Zealand that young drivers are not allowed to take more than n passengers after a certain time in the evening. If I recall correctly (and there's no saying I do) the reasoning is that young male drivers, when presented with a car full of their peers, drive like tossers.
As you say.. not very effective.
I would say the logic might have more to do with the youngster not having the willpower - perhaps egged on by pals - to resist a drink of something stronger than orange juice.
However, I do recall driving the "long way home" over the alpine passes with my pals just for the thrill of it as a young 18 year old driver. By the way - did drive sedately at the time .... at least I think I did
No one complained anyway 
They all fell asleep as I recall.. such was the smoothness of the ride.. WildCat said:
I would say the logic might have more to do with the youngster not having the willpower - perhaps egged on by pals - to resist a drink of something stronger than orange juice.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement Wildcat.
I can only speak from my own experience of my three sons (aged 19, 23 and 27) and their very large circles of friends and my own circle of friends who are a 'bit older'.
That experience would tell me that far from being more likely have 'less willpower to resist', the youngsters have far more willpower than a lot of 'my generation'.
Without fail they nominate a driver for night's out or organise taxi's or lifts or, if they do end up in a pub/club in unplanned circumstances, will NOT drink alcohol. They don't seem to have this 'machismo' thing that you must drink alcohol to be having a good time.
On the other hand, go to any party and look at the middle-aged and older who will willingly consume several drinks and then have 'just one for the road' before deciding that it's not worth calling a taxi and they feel alright to drive.
BB
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
beyond rational said:
So to that end, any number of passengers would be too many.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Maybe young drivers should also be banned from driving within sight of each other.
Or within sight of pedestrains of the opposite sex.
Both the young & motorcycle users are disproportional when it comes to their numbers & the frequency of their involvement in KSIs.
Naturally, they are then going to be a target in the drive to reduce KSIs. Because of the frequency of their involvement, the circumstances of them being involved in KSIs will be looked at.
Where that looks like, again disproportionally, cars full of youngsters are much more likely to be involved in them than single occupancy, that is likely to be a measure that will be explored in addressing the problem of their frequency in adverse events.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th November 07:15
More to do with inexperience. Does not always follow that the opther passengers egged on the young driver. More - he made a seriously fatal error as driver due to inexperience.
Eggsactly. There may be a (moderate) correlation between youth and likelihood of having an accident, but (takes deep breath)...
Correlation is not causation
Legislating on the basis of correlation without first establishing causation will inevitably lead to bad law.
It is more likely that (one of) the cause(s) of a greater tendency to have accidents is, as WildCat says, inexperience. Better, therefore to tackle that by introducing a graded licence system that will allow anyone to prove that they have what it takes, than to introduce blanket prohibitions on a measure that is not diagnostic of the problem.
BigBob said:
WildCat said:
I would say the logic might have more to do with the youngster not having the willpower - perhaps egged on by pals - to resist a drink of something stronger than orange juice.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement Wildcat.
I can only speak from my own experience of my three sons (aged 19, 23 and 27) and their very large circles of friends and my own circle of friends who are a 'bit older'.
That experience would tell me that far from being more likely have 'less willpower to resist', the youngsters have far more willpower than a lot of 'my generation'.
Without fail they nominate a driver for night's out or organise taxi's or lifts or, if they do end up in a pub/club in unplanned circumstances, will NOT drink alcohol. They don't seem to have this 'machismo' thing that you must drink alcohol to be having a good time.
On the other hand, go to any party and look at the middle-aged and older who will willingly consume several drinks and then have 'just one for the road' before deciding that it's not worth calling a taxi and they feel alright to drive.
BB
Te above is actually very true reflection on the generation thing.
It seems to stem from the days when it was considered OK to DD.
In most young groups it is very antisocial to DD, where as the older generation seem to turn a blind eye a little more.
beyond rational said:
Why?
For the same reasons they bought restrictions in for motorbikes.
I've been "unfortunate" (wrong word I know...) to meet a lady who lost her daughter in an accident, I promise you, it's heartbreaking.
Secondly, I do not appreciate, through pure stupidity, being put at risk.
M
Edited by mph999 on Friday 24th November 13:59
Edited by mph999 on Friday 24th November 14:00
Edited by mph999 on Friday 24th November 14:00
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff