Another young driver crash,sad story, Hamble, Hampshire

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Lotobear said:

We got Lotucub an Aygo when he passed his test, hoping that after year 1 he could drive his 1990 Rover Mini 1275.

We were quoted £2,200 for the 73BHP Mini. He ended up buying a petrol 180bhp Octavia VRS DSG and insured it for just over £1,000 - WTF?

The VRS goes like stink, I could swear it's quicker than my NA Evora to 100, ...at least it feels it.

Figure that one out?

Very easy to figure out. When he has a big smash in his VRS, with 4 mates in the car, there's a good chance they will walk away from it. In the 1990 Mini, even in a slower accident, there's a good chance a couple will be seriously injured, with the massive injury claim that follows.

If I were an insurer, I'd wouldn't be covering young drivers in old cars, at any price.

[DoubleD]

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

Without doubt modern cars are safer, but I do wonder if they install a false sense of security by being so insulated and lacking feedback.

I hear this said, but personally I don't buy it. Young drivers don't drive like tts because they think their cars are safe and they won't be hurt if they smash it up. They drive like tts because they don't think they will crash, it won't happen to them, and they are immortal.

You don't think it's possible that part of the reason that they think they're immortal is because the cars are so insulated, capable and lacking feedbacl?

No, young drivers have always been the same.

[psi310398]

DoubleD said:

No, young drivers have always been the same.

^ This.

I really shudder when I think back to how my friends and I drove at 17-18 in flimsy little things like Minis, XR2s and 205 GTIs, not to mention our mopeds, and at a time when, at some garages, it appeared to be entirely optional whether the car in question was actually present when it came to renewing MOTs.

[Shakermaker]

amusingduck said:

You don't think it's possible that part of the reason that they think they're immortal is because the cars are so insulated, capable and lacking feedbacl?

I drove like a tt when I was 17 and had my first car, which was at the time a D-reg polo nearly as old as me. Because I felt immortal, had no supervision, and was showing off to my mates because I had a car and they didn't have a car.

Then a girl in my year at school - coincidentally who had her driving test at the same time as me - crashed and died and put 2 of our schoolmates in hospital for a few weeks - and I drove like a bit less of a tt after that for a while.

[T6 vanman]

skwdenyer said:

T6 vanman said:

For 18 year old T6 junior almost any car was £350~£400 as he's on L Plates, Researching quotes for when he passes indicate around £1100
Honda CR-Z

Is that all? I've heard far higher numbers. My first car insurance was the price of the car. In today's money (inflation-adjusted) that's £1400 or so. Far more cheap cars now than there were, too

Well the CR-Z (the world's ropiest leggiest) was less than the passed insurance quote,
But Front, Side, Curtian airbags, ABS/VSA, Cat 5 NCAP etc .... thats where it's at

[skirk]

When my son turned 17 and started driving i looked long and hard at the options for his first car...He was and is 6' 2" and stocky....a small hatchback was not really an option or in my mind desirable. I am no lover of small " Cute " French hatchbacks . I started hunting around for insurance quotes and they were all coming in around £1500-1800 for smaller 1000cc cars..... In the end i bought him a Volvo S40 1.6.... Nice little low mileage car.....big enough for him....safe enough for me and way ,way cheaper to insure..

[GliderRider]

Lotobear said:

We got Lotucub an Aygo when he passed his test, hoping that after year 1 he could drive his 1990 Rover Mini 1275.

We were quoted £2,200 for the 73BHP Mini. He ended up buying a petrol 180bhp Octavia VRS DSG and insured it for just over £1,000 - WTF?

The VRS goes like stink, I could swear it's quicker than my NA Evora to 100, ...at least it feels it.

Figure that one out?

The insurance company aren't concerned at all about paying out for the car, they aren't concerned about Lotucub, they are only slightly concerned about who or what he hits. They are VERY concerned about the three 'promising, talented teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them' in the passenger seats, and what that might cost them as a payout.

The Rover Metro got slated when it was subjected to the NCAP test. That's because it was optimised for the earlier 30mph test, and the new NCAP test was at 40mph. It could be argued that you would be safer in the Metro than a good NCAP car in a 30mph test, as the later stiffer car won't crumple so much so could be harsher on the occupants. The Austin/BL/Rover Mini was designed 23 years before the Metro, and survivability and crumple zones probably weren't given any consideration at all.
There was a photo of a Rover Mini post-crash test in our lab (for prepping the dummies and cars for NCAP tests); the steering column was through the back of the driver's seat. Where the dummy went, I have no idea.

[sospan]

Modern cars are structurally far better than years ago. More design is put in to generate crumple zones, airbags, etc.. If you are in a crash then you get better protection.
However, I wonder about the effect of “driver aids”. By adding abs, traction control, tyre pressure monitoring to name some common ones, you can argue that drivers think they are safer and can think the car will keep them safe. Better brakes ( upgraded multi pot callipers on big discs with abs etc ) mean faster driving/later braking/ tailgating.......the driving god mentallity?
All the sales grabbing extras, gadgets, infotainment that distract the driver.
Yes some definitely help but can also put drivers into the wrong mindset.
The biggest danger is the driver who creates dangerous situations.
I would happily agree to compulsory assessments every 10 (maybe 5) years. We all pick up new habits and a speed awareness course is a reminder of what we forget.

[eccles]

GliderRider said:

Lotobear said:

We got Lotucub an Aygo when he passed his test, hoping that after year 1 he could drive his 1990 Rover Mini 1275.

We were quoted £2,200 for the 73BHP Mini. He ended up buying a petrol 180bhp Octavia VRS DSG and insured it for just over £1,000 - WTF?

The VRS goes like stink, I could swear it's quicker than my NA Evora to 100, ...at least it feels it.

Figure that one out?

The insurance company aren't concerned at all about paying out for the car, they aren't concerned about Lotucub, they are only slightly concerned about who or what he hits. They are VERY concerned about the three 'promising, talented teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them' in the passenger seats, and what that might cost them as a payout.

The Rover Metro got slated when it was subjected to the NCAP test. That's because it was optimised for the earlier 30mph test, and the new NCAP test was at 40mph. It could be argued that you would be safer in the Metro than a good NCAP car in a 30mph test, as the later stiffer car won't crumple so much so could be harsher on the occupants. The Austin/BL/Rover Mini was designed 23 years before the Metro, and survivability and crumple zones probably weren't given any consideration at all.
There was a photo of a Rover Mini post-crash test in our lab (for prepping the dummies and cars for NCAP tests); the steering column was through the back of the driver's seat. Where the dummy went, I have no idea.

Minis were a right of passage for me and many of my mates in the early 80's, most of us crashed them at one time or another and none of us were seriously injured.Strangely most of my mates who got injured in crashes seemed to drive Mk1 or 2 Escorts, but even then it was mostly just the odd broken limb.
I always read statements that minis are death traps with a bit of a smile, as my real world experience has shown them to be anything but that.

One that didn't polish out......

[M4cruiser]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Very easy to figure out. When he has a big smash in his VRS, with 4 mates in the car, there's a good chance they will walk away from it. In the 1990 Mini, even in a slower accident, there's a good chance a couple will be seriously injured, with the massive injury claim that follows.

If I were an insurer, I'd wouldn't be covering young drivers in old cars, at any price.

^^ and this is my point, the bigger car protects better, if it's crashed at the same speed as the smaller one.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

Without doubt modern cars are safer, but I do wonder if they install a false sense of security by being so insulated and lacking feedback.

I hear this said, but personally I don't buy it. Young drivers don't drive like tts because they think their cars are safe and they won't be hurt if they smash it up. They drive like tts because they don't think they will crash, it won't happen to them, and they are immortal.

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

[Robertj21a]

M4cruiser said:

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

Why should we stop 4 young people going out in a car together ? - we have no idea of the skills of the driver, or the drunken/drugged state - or not - of his friends. Although it's General Election day today I don't think that any manifesto suggested taking away our freedoms...........

[M4cruiser]

Robertj21a said:

M4cruiser said:

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

Why should we stop 4 young people going out in a car together ? - we have no idea of the skills of the driver, or the drunken/drugged state - or not - of his friends. Although it's General Election day today I don't think that any manifesto suggested taking away our freedoms...........

There are already a lot of rules surrounding driving, and so there should be, because it's a serious business with potentially serious consequences. We already "stop" 16 year olds driving. We already "stop" learners going out on their own. It would be just an extension of those rules that currently allow people to be "introduced" to driving to encourage/mandate some progressive way of gaining experience. Pass-plus is all we've had so far, and although very limited and voluntary, it was a first step. Has it worked? Maybe it's time to extend it a bit.

[yellowjack]

Robertj21a said:

M4cruiser said:

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

Why should we stop 4 young people going out in a car together ? - we have no idea of the skills of the driver, or the drunken/drugged state - or not - of his friends. Although it's General Election day today I don't think that any manifesto suggested taking away our freedoms...........

Eh? So to protect the "civil liberties" of four teenagers, the rest of us have to run the gauntlet of their inexperience and potentially idiocy? What about my basic "right to life"? Or your right to not be involved in a collision with four chimps arsing about in a potentially deadly metal box?

I'm sorry, but driving is a privilege, not a right, and too many people seem to believe it's their right. Well whatever it is, right, or privilege, it comes with some pretty serious responsibilities toward everyone else who uses the roads too. And if you are too immature to take those responsibilities seriously, then you damned well ought to be prevented from driving and be given directions to a local bus stop until such time as you can be trusted with the safety of everyone else who uses the roads..

[Mr Tidy]

Robertj21a said:

M4cruiser said:

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

Why should we stop 4 young people going out in a car together ? - we have no idea of the skills of the driver, or the drunken/drugged state - or not - of his friends. Although it's General Election day today I don't think that any manifesto suggested taking away our freedoms...........

I unexpectedly met up with a couple of school mates last month at a classic car meet and one realised our combined ages made the best darts score of 180!

We all had mopeds at 16 and thrashed them mercilessly to get to the chip bar in Epsom High Street, or Ryka's burger van in the car park at Box Hill if we had the petrol money.

Then at 17 we got cars, an Anglia 997cc, a Morris Minor and a MK2 1500cc Cortina that we drove like we had stolen them, frequently with 2 or 3 passengers because we couldn't afford to use 2 cars.

No safety aids at all, but we were immortal so didn't need them and the cars weren't exactly quick even by the standards of a modern Aygo/C1, etc.

But we were all car fans and had some sense of what was possible, and what could all end badly - which is probably why we came through that part of our lives unscathed thankfully.

Anyway regardless of the cause, that report is just so sad.

[Heaveho]

If you learn to drive, pass your test, are in possession of a current licence, buy, tax, MOT and insure a car, and are not under the influence of alcohol or substances, have you not earned the right to drive?

Never mind. Horrible thing to happen to anyone, I know that road very well, I can see how a person could go off at several places along it.

[yellowjack]

Heaveho said:

If you learn to drive, pass your test, are in possession of a current licence, buy, tax, MOT and insure a car, and are not under the influence of alcohol or substances, have you not earned the right to drive?

Never mind. Horrible thing to happen to anyone, I know that road very well, I can see how a person could go off at several places along it.

Yes. Of course you have. To the standards required of a competent, considerate driver, in accordance with the law and prevailing road/weather conditions. If you can't manage that, then i'm afraid you are not yet mature enough to be in control of a motor vehicle on the roads, regardless of how technically and legally qualified you are to drive.

I'm reminded of this case of a young lad who died horribly some years ago... https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/fatal...
He'd crashed into a verge and through a fence near where he lived. The crash was thought to have happened in the wee small hours, but he wasn't found until after sunrise. There was all the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth from friends and family, and floral tributes swearing that he was God's very own Angel, the salt of the earth, etc, etc. Then it turned out that he was twice over the drink drive limit, was driving in excess of the speed limit, and he had traces of cannabis in his system. Oh, and he'd argued with, and assaulted his girlfriend while on their night out too. Sounded to me like a thoroughly nasty piece of work all around, and someone who I'd suggest was, psychologically speaking, not suited to being left in charge of a motor vehicle under any circumstances, let alone to be allowed to drive one unsupervised at 2 am. It doesn't make all young drivers demons, of course, but some of them, while not being nasty bds, are simply not safe to be sharing the roads with the rest of us until they get their reckless youth out of their systems and mature a bit longer.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Robertj21a said:

M4cruiser said:

Just to be clear, in the Hamble case no one is officially saying (yet) what the Aygo's speed was, or what/who caused the crash. I'm just appalled that we still allow 4 young people to be out at night in such a small car; the oldest person in the car being only 18 means some lack of driving experience, no matter what else was going on.

Why should we stop 4 young people going out in a car together ? - we have no idea of the skills of the driver, or the drunken/drugged state - or not - of his friends. Although it's General Election day today I don't think that any manifesto suggested taking away our freedoms...........

My sons never needed their own car when they were teens, but were additional occasional drivers on my company car. I told them the company insurance didn't allow them to carry more than one passenger, other than immediate family members. This was of course a lie but they never knew. I kept this make believe restriction in place until they were 21.

They still don't know it was a lie, and I doubt they'd care if they did. They'd probably say "yeah, that was quite a sensible restriction to place on us."

They rarely used the car anyway. (London, Oyster card, difficult & expensive to park, plenty of buses and the tube)

[Heaveho]

yellowjack said:

Yes. Of course you have. To the standards required of a competent, considerate driver, in accordance with the law and prevailing road/weather conditions. If you can't manage that, then i'm afraid you are not yet mature enough to be in control of a motor vehicle on the roads, regardless of how technically and legally qualified you are to drive.

It's not about maturity though, at least initially, it's about experience. You have to spend time driving to gain that. All the things I've listed give you the right to drive legally, regardless of lack of experience or maturity and in spite of the things you've listed being desirable.

[A Winner Is You]

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

Without doubt modern cars are safer, but I do wonder if they install a false sense of security by being so insulated and lacking feedback.

I hear this said, but personally I don't buy it. Young drivers don't drive like tts because they think their cars are safe and they won't be hurt if they smash it up. They drive like tts because they don't think they will crash, it won't happen to them, and they are immortal.

You don't think it's possible that part of the reason that they think they're immortal is because the cars are so insulated, capable and lacking feedbacl?

It's not just young drivers either, last night was torrential rain on the A1M, but people were still tanking past at 80/90, which I can't imagine people would do in a mk1 Cortina. The safety aids must have a psychological effect, in the same way you'd be more cautious at the edge of a cliff that didn't have a safety barrier.

[Shakermaker]

Regardless of all of this, is it still correct that the UK has the fewest road deaths of all countries in Europe, as a proportion of the population?

Its always tragic when it happens, but clearly we ARE doing something correctly with regards to mitigating the risks and educating drivers and other road users, if indeed my opening line is correct.