Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flibble22)
    They can **** right off. I've just started to drive again (yesterday infact) and I'll be damned if they tell me when I can and can't drive. Police state gone mad.
    So, you didn't follow the rules and wait till you were 17, then learn, then pass your test...?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shooks)

    • A minimum learning period for drivers once they turn 17, so they get more on-the-road experience.

    This is ridiculous!
    I have my driving test next week and have been having lessons for about 5 months now. This has crippled me financially, driving lessons are unbelievably expensive. Extending the period will just make driving for the privileged few who can afford it.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    PS Helper
    Curfew is completely idiotic.
    "Minimum learning period" It's not about the period of time it takes you to pass, it's the time spent behind the wheel!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shooks)
    From the BBC: the latest government ideas on road safety and young drivers:


    BBC

    According to the Beeb's article, these were among the key suggestions considered for a full green paper set to be published later in the spring:

    • A curfew for drivers aged 17 to 24
    • Limit on the number of passengers young drivers can carry in their car
    • A zero-alcohol limit.
    • A minimum learning period for drivers once they turn 17, so they get more on-the-road experience.
    • Motorway lessons for learners
    • Extension of the six-point probationary period from two to three years
    • Driving tests changed to include more unsupervised driving time


    As someone who's already got their licence, this doesn't affect me directly but I do find it interesting. Out of all the points, I think the minimum learning period makes most sense. I turned 17 and passed my test within six weeks - far too soon, in retrospect. More time on the road = better drivers. Got to be a good thing.
    If the government don't have a problem being ageist they should start retesting people over 60 to make sure their driving is up to scratch.

    My grandads almost killed us all too many times!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So they don't want youths driving in the dark.... or past a certain time.... so how are they going to practice driving in the dark :/ so they hit 25 and suddenly loads of accidents occur because nobody knows how the hell to drive in the dark?!

    they should crack down on old people driving!

    my family sneakily called the police on my grandad because he is horrendous, can't see and swerves all over the place and has nearly caused so many accidents
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flibble22)
    They can **** right off. I've just started to drive again (yesterday infact) and I'll be damned if they tell me when I can and can't drive. Police state gone mad.
    It has been happening with motorcycles for a long time. In February a revision for bikes was introduced meaning that you have to be 24 to ride bikes over 47 horsepower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with this, but if the government were to go through with this it should apply to all new drivers not just young ones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When I started driving I was working as a chef. A lot of chefs I know have to drive. A lot of chefs start their career at 16.

    This wouldn't go down well for people like I was. We finish really late in the evenings, and sometimes work all week (So our socializing can only get done at ungodly hours with our other friends in the catering industry)...

    This would be disasterous for people who work hours like that...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    [/LIST]
    This is ridiculous!
    I have my driving test next week and have been having lessons for about 5 months now. This has crippled me financially, driving lessons are unbelievably expensive. Extending the period will just make driving for the privileged few who can afford it.
    How many lessons in those 5 months though? I passed my test in 3 months and that was after having a two hour session pretty much every week.

    I agree, the rules do sound slightly odd, but they could be worked out. For things like pilot training, there is a minimum number of hours which must be achieved for the test (and elements along the way) and also for renewals of that licence. Thus, it's not uncommon for people to be assessed that way.


    I was under the impression that people had to do a minimum number of hours anyway. I know of a guy who passed his test in the few weeks after turning 17. He basically did the theory and practical as soon as possible.

    I wouldn't mind an hours restriction (provided it is sensible and doesn't force people to do more hours than required) but there should be a minimum number of hours with an instructor and I think they should approve candidates before they go for the test. I don't get how driving with a parent was ever considered a safe thing to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmhumphries)
    Wait, why should passengers have to have a zero blood alcohol level? I strongly disagree with this, as I see little use and big inconvenience.
    A major cause of crashes amongst young drivers is being distracted by passengers, generally young passengers.
    By their very nature young people are more annoying when drunk, and therefore pose more of a distraction to the driver.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    You make the test harder or don't touch it.

    It's wrong to limit some people just because of what others do in this respect, if they are going to be idiots, find other ways around it, don't punish people who do nothing wrong.

    I passed and I don't do any silly things, I pay enough for insurance as it is, why should I be told when I can and cannot drive my car? (To Mcdonalds at night for a Mcflurry)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The curfew is a ridiculous idea, my job involves regular 11pm plus finishes and 630 am starts
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The curfew idea is ridiculous. It makes me annoyed even thinking about it. They can't assume all young people are bad drivers. Some of the other ideas maybe. But a curfew is ridiculous.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by officelinebacker)
    A major cause of crashes amongst young drivers is being distracted by passengers, generally young passengers.
    By their very nature young people are more annoying when drunk, and therefore pose more of a distraction to the driver.
    I drove drunk people this one time.

    The guy in the passenger seat touched the handbrake lever. Once. I pulled over, made him sit in the back and said I'd kick him out if he did it again. I did not have any further issues whilst doing them a favour of driving them.


    On another occasion I was driving from the pub (they weren't drunk, just excitable) back to town to go out for the night. One of them turned up the radio and took a flash picture. I told her to stop it and turned the music down (I really cannot stand unnecessarily loud music, it puts me off) and she didn't do it again.


    For the record, I'm only an ass to the people in my car when they pose a risk to me, the other occupants or other people. I like my vision to not be blinded, especially at night, by flashes and I hate super loud music because I can't focus on the environment.


    The problem is not people being distracted, it's that they won't tell their buddies to shut up and sit down. I don't see why their inability to do that should affect my ability to drive friends around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They mentioned this in I today as well. I think a lot of the proposals sound good - especially those concerned with extra training e.g. lessons on bad weather driving and a minimum learning period.

    Most of my friends (myself included) are learning at the moment and a lot of people seem to be focusing on just passing the test rather than being a safe driver. Some people I know have taken their practical test 3 or 4 times. Perhaps they were indeed "unlucky" but I don't think it's a bad idea to force people to train more rigorously before taking their test.

    I'm less keen on the restrictions such as passengers and night driving. They seem a bit obtuse - there is a big difference between dropping your siblings home from school and ferrying around drunk friends for example
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Some of those are good ideas, but a curfew?!? For 24 year olds?! FOR REAL??
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    If the government don't have a problem being ageist they should start retesting people over 60 to make sure their driving is up to scratch.

    My grandads almost killed us all too many times!
    Couldn't agree more, I feel much safer in the car with my 19 year old brother than my 68 year old grandma.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    How many lessons in those 5 months though? I passed my test in 3 months and that was after having a two hour session pretty much every week.
    One and a half hour sessions every week.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    I drove drunk people this one time.

    The guy in the passenger seat touched the handbrake lever. Once. I pulled over, made him sit in the back and said I'd kick him out if he did it again. I did not have any further issues whilst doing them a favour of driving them.


    On another occasion I was driving from the pub (they weren't drunk, just excitable) back to town to go out for the night. One of them turned up the radio and took a flash picture. I told her to stop it and turned the music down (I really cannot stand unnecessarily loud music, it puts me off) and she didn't do it again.


    For the record, I'm only an ass to the people in my car when they pose a risk to me, the other occupants or other people. I like my vision to not be blinded, especially at night, by flashes and I hate super loud music because I can't focus on the environment.


    The problem is not people being distracted, it's that they won't tell their buddies to shut up and sit down. I don't see why their inability to do that should affect my ability to drive friends around.
    This. Drivers need to control the people in their car. If they feel that drunk people are going to distract them, don't carry them. But don't punish people who don't have passengers who distract them.

    (Original post by GeekyNick)
    They mentioned this in I today as well. I think a lot of the proposals sound good - especially those concerned with extra training e.g. lessons on bad weather driving and a minimum learning period.

    Most of my friends (myself included) are learning at the moment and a lot of people seem to be focusing on just passing the test rather than being a safe driver. Some people I know have taken their practical test 3 or 4 times. Perhaps they were indeed "unlucky" but I don't think it's a bad idea to force people to train more rigorously before taking their test.

    I'm less keen on the restrictions such as passengers and night driving. They seem a bit obtuse - there is a big difference between dropping your siblings home from school and ferrying around drunk friends for example
    One of the problems with lessons on things like bad weather is you have to wait for it to crop up. Ok, so if you learn for a year, in the last 2/3 years you would been able to get some snow/ice practice - but what if next year we don't have this cold snap?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why is it?

    If you've been driving any length of time whatsoever you know there are a great many god-awful drivers of all ages out there. Why should we only restrict poor/inexperienced drivers who are young? Anyone who's crap should be found out and given extra training.
    That's my point - we shouldn't restrict them based on their age. But introducing an across-the-board mandatory five-yearly re-test isn't the answer either. Five years is way too often. Anyone who is rubbish at driving should be found out by other (less artificial) means, and appropriate action taken. For instance, people who have caused accidents; who have been caught drink driving; who do drive in a reckless fashion, should all be punished (much more severely than they currently are), irrespective of age.

    Almost anyone who drives regularly (even if poorly) would be able to put on their test-hat again and pass. That's somewhat pulling the wool over the system's eyes, in much the same way as people slowing from 90mph to 70mph when they see a speed camera. It sorely misses the point that those rubbish drivers will do what they need to do to pass the test, and then go on with their dangerous driving habits again. They largely don't drive like idiots because they are incapable of driving safely; they drive like idiots because they want to.


    (Original post by Drewski)
    According to the news reports around this new initiative "a fifth of road accidents resulting in death or serious injury involve drivers under the age of 24".... so what about the other four fifths? Are we supposed to just ignore those deaths? Or should we actually try and do something about it?
    Agreed - hence why I think we should be targeting bad drivers, not exclusively young drivers.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.