Under 25s shouldn't drive at night.
Discussion
According to insurance companies - apologies if this has been done, but the search is useless.
Right, so, I'm 23. I have my own house with a mortgage to pay. My OH and myself both have cars which we have to use to get to work, due to the distance we both commute. We both leave the house at 06:30 and both of us get back well after dark in the winter. I am also on call every other weekend which does mean I get called out occasionally at unsociable hours.
Is 25 still considered young? Just wtf?!
Right, so, I'm 23. I have my own house with a mortgage to pay. My OH and myself both have cars which we have to use to get to work, due to the distance we both commute. We both leave the house at 06:30 and both of us get back well after dark in the winter. I am also on call every other weekend which does mean I get called out occasionally at unsociable hours.
Is 25 still considered young? Just wtf?!
Total load of nonsense isnt it, most car accidents happen in the daytime and most of those are in low speed limit urban areas yet insurers and road safety charities seem to think the way to stop this is to ban under 25s from our safest (fastest) roads at the safest times.
Is there a smiley on here for sarcastic slow clap?
Is there a smiley on here for sarcastic slow clap?
martin84 said:
Total load of nonsense isnt it, most car accidents happen in the daytime and most of those are in low speed limit urban areas yet insurers and road safety charities seem to think the way to stop this is to ban under 25s from our safest (fastest) roads at the safest times.
Is there a smiley on here for sarcastic slow clap?
Have you got any data to support that? Is there a smiley on here for sarcastic slow clap?
From personal experience the one accident I had that was my fault was aged 18, 3 am in the morning on the motorway, missed the junction and like an idiot decided if I broke really hard I could still make it. Leading to much spinning, hitting some signs and the central reservation.
Im not suggesting that the insurance companies are right but would imagine they see a lot of claims data and wouldnt be risking cutting off their business if they thought it was the safest time as if that were the case, they would be getting rid of their most profitable business?
richtea78 said:
From personal experience the one accident I had that was my fault was aged 18, 3 am in the morning on the motorway, missed the junction and like an idiot decided if I broke really hard I could still make it. Leading to much spinning, hitting some signs and the central reservation.
I dont see what the time of day had to do with your accident. Are you saying it wouldnt of happened at 1pm?richtea78 said:
Have you got any data to support that?
Im not suggesting that the insurance companies are right but would imagine they see a lot of claims data and wouldnt be risking cutting off their business if they thought it was the safest time as if that were the case, they would be getting rid of their most profitable business?
Department for Transport data clearly shows the majority of accidents occur during the day on urban roads so presumably most insurance claims stem from accidents during the day on urban roads also so i cant see why insurers would be interested in this proposal. If they were looking at it from a profits point of view they'd be refusing to cover people who drive during the day, but then thats most people so they'd get no custom. Usually its the likes of Brake who view every human under 25 as a night-dwelling scrote with a Focus ST who goes around looting from Currys and murdering children (think of the children) and they dont want young people on the road at night. The idea of 'ban under 25s from motorways' isnt statistically valid as motorways are statistically our safest roads.Im not suggesting that the insurance companies are right but would imagine they see a lot of claims data and wouldnt be risking cutting off their business if they thought it was the safest time as if that were the case, they would be getting rid of their most profitable business?
The fact is though if one insurance company refused to cover under 25s at night the one beside them would.
ks!martin84 said:
richtea78 said:
From personal experience the one accident I had that was my fault was aged 18, 3 am in the morning on the motorway, missed the junction and like an idiot decided if I broke really hard I could still make it. Leading to much spinning, hitting some signs and the central reservation.
I dont see what the time of day had to do with your accident. Are you saying it wouldnt of happened at 1pm?richtea78 said:
Have you got any data to support that?
Im not suggesting that the insurance companies are right but would imagine they see a lot of claims data and wouldnt be risking cutting off their business if they thought it was the safest time as if that were the case, they would be getting rid of their most profitable business?
Department for Transport data clearly shows the majority of accidents occur during the day on urban roads so presumably most insurance claims stem from accidents during the day on urban roads also so i cant see why insurers would be interested in this proposal. Usually its the likes of Brake who view every human under 25 as a night-dwelling scrote with a Focus ST who goes around looting from Currys and murdering children (think of the children) and they dont want young people on the road at night. The idea of 'ban under 25s from motorways' isnt statistically valid as motorways are statistically our safest roads.Im not suggesting that the insurance companies are right but would imagine they see a lot of claims data and wouldnt be risking cutting off their business if they thought it was the safest time as if that were the case, they would be getting rid of their most profitable business?
The fact is though if one insurance company refused to cover under 25s at night the one beside them would.
I bet the DoT data also shows the majority of miles are covered on urban roads during the day too. But as a number of accidents per miles driven I bet the number is much higher at night time. And the bit about motorways... just no.
martin84 said:
twazzock said:
Had he missed the junction during the day he would likely have just carried on to the next one rather than braking, so no.
Thats the fault of the driver not of the Earth's rotation.Do you want me to put it any simpler?
martin84 said:
twazzock said:
The traffic conditions during night and day are completely different -> different driver action -> no crash.
Do you want me to put it any simpler?
Yes because im still struggling to see how the accident was anything other than driver error. Do you want me to put it any simpler?
Would you drive past a school at kicking out time during the week at 30mph? No, you'd (probably) have a crash/run someone over. Would you drive past at 30 in the early hours of the morning? Yes, there's far less risk.
Not difficult to understand.
martin84 said:
twazzock said:
Driver error as a result of driver action that wouldn't have been taken if there was traffic around (during the day).
So its the traffics fault for not being there? Thats like a murderer saying 'i wouldnt of killed them if they werent there.'Zwolf said:
Alternatively, night, motorway and adverse weather driving could all be incorporated into driving tuition before someone is awarded a licence. Make them a qualifying criteria for existing full licence holders too.
Its difficult to plan for 'adverse weather' but even dual carraigeway would be good. If you live in a big city where the test centre is then you probably wont see a NSL road on any of your lessons.
First of, age discrimination. There are no such laws applyiing to insurance. If an insurance company don't want to cover under 25s at night, that's up to them. Find an insurer who will. Plenty of insurers don't cover under 25's at night or during the day. Because they don't cover under 25s at all!! That's their choice.
My understanding of this story is that some insurers are offering a discount to under 25s who agree not to drive at night. Not when it's dark, but between 10pm and 6am is the time in question. If that suits the young driver in question, and they get a discount, why not? Plenty of people restrict who can drive their car, so why not when you drive. Seems sensible to me.
Of course if it doesn't suit you then don't do it. But be prepared to pay more, like having any driver instead of restricted drivers. It's a free market out there, thankfully.
My understanding of this story is that some insurers are offering a discount to under 25s who agree not to drive at night. Not when it's dark, but between 10pm and 6am is the time in question. If that suits the young driver in question, and they get a discount, why not? Plenty of people restrict who can drive their car, so why not when you drive. Seems sensible to me.
Of course if it doesn't suit you then don't do it. But be prepared to pay more, like having any driver instead of restricted drivers. It's a free market out there, thankfully.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff