New drivers could be banned from driving at night BBC
Discussion
JohneeBoy said:
Is another factor here simply that young drivers are more likely to be in older, smaller and less safe cars, and at night more likely to be carrying multiple passengers?
Wouldn't introducing a rule that young drivers must be off the road by, say 10pm, mean that come 9:45pm the road would be full of young drivers all desperate to get home as quickly as possible. Isn't this just moving the problem?
That's brave thinking that shows that the powers that be haven't really thought it through.Wouldn't introducing a rule that young drivers must be off the road by, say 10pm, mean that come 9:45pm the road would be full of young drivers all desperate to get home as quickly as possible. Isn't this just moving the problem?
Obviously it needs to be 9:30 pm.
Alucidnation said:
speedy_thrills said:
Just my opinion but in many ways cars are actually more difficult to drive and consequently more dangerous than they used to be. Car manufacturers have crammed in loads of junk from distracting ICE systems and dashboard lights/displays all vying for limited attention. Fat B pillars now create blind spots so large you need a detection system to tell you if anyone is hiding there and you are constantly peering around A pillars at junctions. Cars bodies have also grown large making even low speed maneuvering more difficult. Cars weigh a lot more and consequently have to have more powerful engines but tyre traction has not kept pace. Headlights have become so bright that passing other cars temporarily blinds you. There are so many driver aids constantly interfering that drivers never get a chance to actually experience what is happening at the wheels so would have no chance of catching a slide on a tight corner for example.
When you get into a learners car many of is grew up with, like 3rd to 5th generation Civics and compare it to the modern offering, you realise we had it so easy. We had reasonable vision all round, few distractions (maybe a tape deck - depending on how tight the first owner was), simple instruments/buttons/displays. We could just concentrate on and be fully engaged in actually driving the [expletive] vehicle.
Sorry but most of this is absolute cobblers.When you get into a learners car many of is grew up with, like 3rd to 5th generation Civics and compare it to the modern offering, you realise we had it so easy. We had reasonable vision all round, few distractions (maybe a tape deck - depending on how tight the first owner was), simple instruments/buttons/displays. We could just concentrate on and be fully engaged in actually driving the [expletive] vehicle.
Rather than a distracting ICE we started out with radios that had to be manually tuned, cars that needed choke, and even then might struggle to run on a cold morning. Imagine coming up to a junction and having to juggle the brake to stop, and throttle to keep the engine from cutting out!
It's a hell of a lot easier to drive a car the starts first time, runs an all cylinders from the off, needs no adjustment as you drive, and has a reasonable amount of power.
Car bodies may have grown, but you can just buy a smaller car. as individual models have got bigger, smaller cars have been introduced. My daughter has an Aygo and it's tiny.
The vision I agree with, but I'd take compromised visibility over all the compromises I grew up with.
Cantaloupe said:
I'd rather the Government target the real purveyors of fender-bending doom,
how about the number of crashes involving drivers over 75, especially low speed crashes involving no other cars.
Nobody hurt, civil matter, keeps bodyshop technicians in work. Government doesn’t care.how about the number of crashes involving drivers over 75, especially low speed crashes involving no other cars.
marksx said:
What a ridiculous idea.
I think I spent most of early driving time out at night. I passed my test in December. All my commuting was in the dark. Once work was done I was out with my mates who were in their cars.
The accidents I've had have all been in daylight. In low powered cars.
As has been said many times on this thread, it's got fI think I spent most of early driving time out at night. I passed my test in December. All my commuting was in the dark. Once work was done I was out with my mates who were in their cars.
The accidents I've had have all been in daylight. In low powered cars.
k all to do with commuting in December. If it gets implemented, it'll be between certain hours, 11pm-6am or similar. And your one off experiences about your accidents aren't relevant. This is about KSI accidents very late at night or in the early hours, and those accidents involve a disproportionate number of new/young drivers. That's a fact, not guesswork, or someones hunch based on their own experience.
The original post was sparked in part by the upcoming Road Safety Action Plan.
This details Road safety statement and two-year action plan, addressing road safety issues throughout the lifetime of roads users.
and here is the start of it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-sa...
This details Road safety statement and two-year action plan, addressing road safety issues throughout the lifetime of roads users.
and here is the start of it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-sa...
eccles said:
Down and out said:
skyrover said:
Maybe hi viz and helmets is the way forward.
eccles said:
Down and out said:
skyrover said:
Maybe hi viz and helmets is the way forward.
I’m broadly in favour of protecting people from their own poor judgment and I know that isn’t a popular view on here but...
This is poor, a blunt instrument and unenforceable, will clamp down on many responsible people etc
Why not make the test more serious in the first place ie: must learn for minimum of 6-12 months. Can only take one test every 6 months. If you fail 3 times you have some extended period. It is utterly laughable that people can keep taking their test every 10 days till they pass. That’s not long enough for a poor driver to improve or to take in and learn from errors.
Also why not limit power till certain years after the test. Could be enforced by the insurers easily enough and is recognised as important for bikes. No good saying it’s already priced in, another blunt instrument. Would also wipe out the dheads in the North making people’s lives miserable with their daily hire of old lambos and Ferrari’s.
This is poor, a blunt instrument and unenforceable, will clamp down on many responsible people etc
Why not make the test more serious in the first place ie: must learn for minimum of 6-12 months. Can only take one test every 6 months. If you fail 3 times you have some extended period. It is utterly laughable that people can keep taking their test every 10 days till they pass. That’s not long enough for a poor driver to improve or to take in and learn from errors.
Also why not limit power till certain years after the test. Could be enforced by the insurers easily enough and is recognised as important for bikes. No good saying it’s already priced in, another blunt instrument. Would also wipe out the d
heads in the North making people’s lives miserable with their daily hire of old lambos and Ferrari’s. I think this will only affect the sensible young drivers. I'm sure most of us drove like dicks sometimes in our younger days, but I'd say generally speaking most of the ones who crash through recklessness already disregard a lot of the laws surrounding driving anyway (mobile phone use, inappropriate speed, insurance fronting, racing, etc etc etc). Why would this be treated any different?
For me, the answer would be a total re-work of the process to get the licence in the first place. Education, start it in schools maybe? The time learning in a car should have a minimum time before you go for your test. Include motorways in the lessons also. Maybe even power limits on cars like the motorbike system. Sure you can still get into trouble in a 1.0l hatchback, same as you can on a 125cc bike, but they're definitley more forgiving than a high powered rear-drive sports car.
Unfortunatley the cost of all this would probably be prohibitive.
For me, the answer would be a total re-work of the process to get the licence in the first place. Education, start it in schools maybe? The time learning in a car should have a minimum time before you go for your test. Include motorways in the lessons also. Maybe even power limits on cars like the motorbike system. Sure you can still get into trouble in a 1.0l hatchback, same as you can on a 125cc bike, but they're definitley more forgiving than a high powered rear-drive sports car.
Unfortunatley the cost of all this would probably be prohibitive.
Cantaloupe said:
Vipers said:
And as the article said "The move comes as figures suggest one in five drivers are involved in a crash within a year of passing their test."
So 80% of accidents are those who have been driving for some time, doesn't that tell you something.
Personally can't see it happening.
Edited by Vipers on Sunday 21st July 12:43
That's really not a startling statistic, it's like saying 80% of males involved in
penis/vacuum cleaner accidents are under 18, you don't say.
I'd rather the Government target the real purveyors of fender-bending doom,
how about the number of crashes involving drivers over 75, especially low speed crashes involving no other cars.
irocfan said:
you're missing the point here - it's the PROPORTION of young drivers involved in bad accidents (indeed accidents in general) rather than outright numbers...
I don't understand why there is any argument over this. I get that some people may think that a late hours ban is not the way to tackle the issue of KSI accidents involving young drivers in the early hours, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but to try and say the issue itself doesn't exist, or is on a par with elderly drivers having low speed parking accidents, is just a complete denial of the reality.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't understand why there is any argument over this. I get that some people may think that a late hours ban is not the way to tackle the issue of KSI accidents involving young drivers in the early hours, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but to try and say the issue itself doesn't exist, or is on a par with elderly drivers having low speed parking accidents, is just a complete denial of the reality.
Hm? That's not what the stats showed about elderly drivers in the report linked above (over a fixed distance). It would suggest anyone over ~77 should have the same restrictions placed on them as the under 25's in my reading of it.
The reality is there will always be a group that is "high risk" for the current time. Just where do we want to say it's something to keep reducing, versus the impacts on people's living? And that has no clear answer - it will vary with person. As I mentioned before, the main factor for kids of a certain age being involved in fatalities is them being on their mobiles apparently - so not actually to do with the car drivers themselves. Do we ban phones for example for kids under 16? That would save a bunch of lives. Or do we raise awareness, but accept the use of mobile phones will have a sad consequence of some people not paying enough attention and so being killed?
Edited by NRS on Monday 22 July 16:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff