This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Struggling with sleep
- My parent forces me to wake up at 5 am for GCSE's.
- Feel like an absolute failure
- Getting Kathy fit again. Take II
- I'm not disciplined enough for A-levels
- BAE Systems Glasoced
- HNC or University
- How to get work experience in Film and Television?
- Year1 children’s nursing
- Student Union Fresher’s Tickets
- How to get 8-9 hours sleep and pray fajr
- Am I being underpaid? Is this workplace abuse of overtime?
- Breaking up after concert ?! Ignored completely disrespect
- Paper 2 Question 2 Marking
- Veterinary Medicine
- Please help me understand what I can do
- Missed my photography aqa teacher hand in.
- Starting 6th Form and Want to maintain a good academic and social life
- Confusion at the schedule advertised at Sainsburys for a Services Assistant.
- Uni of exeter clearing
No driving between 10pm and 5am
I read in the paper today that they're thinking of introducing a law that prevents new drivers (people who have been driving less than 2 years) from driving between 10pm and 5am. It would be a measure to reduce the proportion of fatal young-driver accidents (which apparently has tripled in recent years).
What do you all think about this? I can't help but feel slightly outraged, mainly because I've been driving for less than 2 years and I often drive at night without problems or recklessness. It would severely diminish my social life. Of course, the law wouldn't affect me by the time it would be brought into place, but I think it's a natural reaction to have. I think it's mainly boy racer types who cause so many accidents. However, such a law probably WOULD decrease fatal accidents, so would it be worth it?
Discuss....
What do you all think about this? I can't help but feel slightly outraged, mainly because I've been driving for less than 2 years and I often drive at night without problems or recklessness. It would severely diminish my social life. Of course, the law wouldn't affect me by the time it would be brought into place, but I think it's a natural reaction to have. I think it's mainly boy racer types who cause so many accidents. However, such a law probably WOULD decrease fatal accidents, so would it be worth it?
Discuss....
Scroll to see replies
Care to qualify that statement?
LOL, I'll qualify it. According to the news reports that claim that the accident rates have doubled in the last x number of years, most of those were due to driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs.
Do you seriously think that the people who flout the law by driving whilst under the influence, are really going to give a **** about a driving curfew? Of course not, they'll just go out and drive anyway between those hours! How many police patrols have you seen out between the hours of 10pm and 5am whilst driving? Not a lot!
The answer is to do more drug/alcohol testing at the roadside and strengthen the penalties for these offences.
It's like the story this morning about the Indian that killed a medical student in Birmingham and has got away with a short sentence, presumably for driving whilst uninsured (I haven't read the story in full or looked into it properly). I believe the system rewards people for driving uninsured and committing other motoring offences because the sentences and punishment just isn't severe enough - it's sending out the message that 'it's worth taking the risk'.
My personal take on it is that if people are going to be stupid enough to drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs then they deserve to die - it's just a pity about the innocent people that they all too often take with them.
Do you seriously think that the people who flout the law by driving whilst under the influence, are really going to give a **** about a driving curfew? Of course not, they'll just go out and drive anyway between those hours! How many police patrols have you seen out between the hours of 10pm and 5am whilst driving? Not a lot!
The answer is to do more drug/alcohol testing at the roadside and strengthen the penalties for these offences.
It's like the story this morning about the Indian that killed a medical student in Birmingham and has got away with a short sentence, presumably for driving whilst uninsured (I haven't read the story in full or looked into it properly). I believe the system rewards people for driving uninsured and committing other motoring offences because the sentences and punishment just isn't severe enough - it's sending out the message that 'it's worth taking the risk'.
My personal take on it is that if people are going to be stupid enough to drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs then they deserve to die - it's just a pity about the innocent people that they all too often take with them.
slightly off topic, but it really ticks me off the way that the numbre of motorists done for speeding is into the millions, and yet compared to drink driving, doing 46 in a 40 limit is safe. Apparently speed cause 3% of deaths on the road, yet drink driving is the biggest cause of death and accidents. So much effort is put into catching speeders, who often are just an average driver, caught becuase of bad luck, whilst drink drivers get away with it becuase so few checks are done. The only way they will stop drink drivers is by making is so that anyone driving knows there is a reasonable chance they will get stopped and brethalised.
Regarding the late-night ban, it seems a bit stupid when they admitted it was to do with drink and drugs, so rather than punish us all, catch those drinking.
Regarding the late-night ban, it seems a bit stupid when they admitted it was to do with drink and drugs, so rather than punish us all, catch those drinking.
Louise, I agree with what your saying about catching people speeding etc, but not other dangerous drivers. It is so much easier for the police to stick speed cameras up and catch anyway who goes slightly over the limit and then fine them all rather than having to make an effort to go out and find people who are drink driving etc. Whilst speeding is obviously wrong, like you have said, they are more accidents cause by other reasons than some who was a few mph over the limit.
With regards to the driving curfew idea, like has been said, the people who really are the problem will most likely ignore it anyway and the people who try and drive safely and carefully day or night will lose out. People spend a huge amount of time and money getting their licence, money on a car, insurance etc and then to be told that you can only drive at certain hours seems very unfair. This idea could be taken to the extreme - the are more accidents during the rush hour (morning and evening) than during the day, so young drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive then? There are alots of accidents in busy towns etc? Whilst I realise that it may be a good idea, and could potentially save lives, I don't know as it is fair or would work if put into practice.
Out of interest, does anyone have a link for the article - I'd like to read it.
With regards to the driving curfew idea, like has been said, the people who really are the problem will most likely ignore it anyway and the people who try and drive safely and carefully day or night will lose out. People spend a huge amount of time and money getting their licence, money on a car, insurance etc and then to be told that you can only drive at certain hours seems very unfair. This idea could be taken to the extreme - the are more accidents during the rush hour (morning and evening) than during the day, so young drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive then? There are alots of accidents in busy towns etc? Whilst I realise that it may be a good idea, and could potentially save lives, I don't know as it is fair or would work if put into practice.
Out of interest, does anyone have a link for the article - I'd like to read it.
Personally I'd prefer the idea of restricting vehicle engine size and number of passagers without drivers licences (I think New Zealand operates this policy). Personally I would like it so that you can only carry 1 passenger who is not a qualified driver. Also more actual traffic police would help considerably.
We do need to sort out these problems as it seems that "boy racers" now have a car load of passengers when they are breaking the law - they can barely control the vehicle even before you add in the weight of 3 people.
Young people shouldn't be subject to curfews as it restricts what they can do regards employment, which is totally unfair. Also it is only a part-time solutions - all accidents do not occur at night.
We do need to sort out these problems as it seems that "boy racers" now have a car load of passengers when they are breaking the law - they can barely control the vehicle even before you add in the weight of 3 people.
Young people shouldn't be subject to curfews as it restricts what they can do regards employment, which is totally unfair. Also it is only a part-time solutions - all accidents do not occur at night.
I've found a link to the article: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1746342,00.html
Chemist boy, they are looking at limiting the number of passengers that young drivers can take as well looking at the article.
Chemist boy, they are looking at limiting the number of passengers that young drivers can take as well looking at the article.
I agree with regards to a limit on engine size, although it's important to note that there will still be plenty of accidents with small engined cars - e.g. there was a news story yesterday about two teenagers racing/overtaking each other and caused a tragic accident - they had a Citroen Xsara and a Paxo.
Problem there I think was that the cars were loaded with passengers - which as you say, there should be a definite limit on. In order to identify people who've just passed their test, I think newly qualified drivers should have to display green L/P plates on their vehicles for the first 6 months or year or whatever - I definitely drive more cautiously around those kinds and will be more forgiving and give them more time before I BEEP than I would someone who is just driving like an asshole.
Problem there I think was that the cars were loaded with passengers - which as you say, there should be a definite limit on. In order to identify people who've just passed their test, I think newly qualified drivers should have to display green L/P plates on their vehicles for the first 6 months or year or whatever - I definitely drive more cautiously around those kinds and will be more forgiving and give them more time before I BEEP than I would someone who is just driving like an asshole.
OMGWTF
The time thing is stupid, alot of young people need to drive within those times.
The only feasable way of, if it is all young drivers fault, dealing with it is upping the age to 18/19
The only feasable way of, if it is all young drivers fault, dealing with it is upping the age to 18/19
18/19? Make it 21 and have done with it
There's a different type of immaturity between the typical 17 year old, 18 year old and 21 year old.
Louise_1988
slightly off topic, but it really ticks me off the way that the numbre of motorists done for speeding is into the millions, and yet compared to drink driving, doing 46 in a 40 limit is safe. Apparently speed cause 3% of deaths on the road, yet drink driving is the biggest cause of death and accidents. So much effort is put into catching speeders, who often are just an average driver, caught becuase of bad luck, whilst drink drivers get away with it becuase so few checks are done. The only way they will stop drink drivers is by making is so that anyone driving knows there is a reasonable chance they will get stopped and brethalised.
Regarding the late-night ban, it seems a bit stupid when they admitted it was to do with drink and drugs, so rather than punish us all, catch those drinking.
Regarding the late-night ban, it seems a bit stupid when they admitted it was to do with drink and drugs, so rather than punish us all, catch those drinking.
It isn't bad luck, you've got a speedometer, so use it!
Do you REALLY think it is possible to catch the drink drivers? Nice idea, but it's pie in the sky, you've got to be realistic.
I can't see how they would enforce this...especially in the case of older drivers who have just passed their test.
I mean,they can't stop everyone to check when they did their test etc can they?
Also,this is quite ageist-it's not just younger people who cause accidents,it's just the small minority of idiots.Why would I bother learning to drive if I couldn't driver between 10pm-5am anyway as those are the times when there are no buses and when I'd be most likely to need to drive!
I mean,they can't stop everyone to check when they did their test etc can they?
Also,this is quite ageist-it's not just younger people who cause accidents,it's just the small minority of idiots.Why would I bother learning to drive if I couldn't driver between 10pm-5am anyway as those are the times when there are no buses and when I'd be most likely to need to drive!
pghstochaj
18/19? Make it 21 and have done with it
There's a different type of immaturity between the typical 17 year old, 18 year old and 21 year old.
There's a different type of immaturity between the typical 17 year old, 18 year old and 21 year old.
I'm afraid I have to totally disagree with this. A change to 18, but no higher. We can't have fully majoritised adults being denied the ability to learn to drive.
The thing is though, besides the boy racers out there, there are a sizeable amount of mature, responsible enough teenagers out there. So it would be unfair on those for the rule to be implemented. I can't see the curfew working anyway it'd be broken all the time, especially for those who have come of age.
I can see it also possibly doing the opposite of what it's supposed to be doing, more people breaking the rules, driving more recklessley to get what they want to be quicker...causing more accidents in the process.
I don't know what an adequate solution would be to be honest, we have to look at more examples of those around the world and rating their effectiveness before coming to our own conclusion.
regards
--marty
I can see it also possibly doing the opposite of what it's supposed to be doing, more people breaking the rules, driving more recklessley to get what they want to be quicker...causing more accidents in the process.
I don't know what an adequate solution would be to be honest, we have to look at more examples of those around the world and rating their effectiveness before coming to our own conclusion.
regards
--marty
It'll never happen. Too much of an infringement of civil liberties.
I know of a guy who was 17 and just passed his test, and was killed because he drove round a corner too quickly. Thing is it happened at 5pm. So the point is, that doing such a thing would make no difference. They have laws like that over here in Canada, but frankly it's just pointless
Kingspharm
LOL, I'll qualify it. According to the news reports that claim that the accident rates have doubled in the last x number of years, most of those were due to driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs.
Do you seriously think that the people who flout the law by driving whilst under the influence, are really going to give a **** about a driving curfew? Of course not, they'll just go out and drive anyway between those hours! How many police patrols have you seen out between the hours of 10pm and 5am whilst driving? Not a lot!
The answer is to do more drug/alcohol testing at the roadside and strengthen the penalties for these offences.
It's like the story this morning about the Indian that killed a medical student in Birmingham and has got away with a short sentence, presumably for driving whilst uninsured (I haven't read the story in full or looked into it properly). I believe the system rewards people for driving uninsured and committing other motoring offences because the sentences and punishment just isn't severe enough - it's sending out the message that 'it's worth taking the risk'.
My personal take on it is that if people are going to be stupid enough to drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs then they deserve to die - it's just a pity about the innocent people that they all too often take with them.
Do you seriously think that the people who flout the law by driving whilst under the influence, are really going to give a **** about a driving curfew? Of course not, they'll just go out and drive anyway between those hours! How many police patrols have you seen out between the hours of 10pm and 5am whilst driving? Not a lot!
The answer is to do more drug/alcohol testing at the roadside and strengthen the penalties for these offences.
It's like the story this morning about the Indian that killed a medical student in Birmingham and has got away with a short sentence, presumably for driving whilst uninsured (I haven't read the story in full or looked into it properly). I believe the system rewards people for driving uninsured and committing other motoring offences because the sentences and punishment just isn't severe enough - it's sending out the message that 'it's worth taking the risk'.
My personal take on it is that if people are going to be stupid enough to drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs then they deserve to die - it's just a pity about the innocent people that they all too often take with them.
Very well said
Anne Auraque
It isn't bad luck, you've got a speedometer, so use it!
Do you REALLY think it is possible to catch the drink drivers? Nice idea, but it's pie in the sky, you've got to be realistic.
Do you REALLY think it is possible to catch the drink drivers? Nice idea, but it's pie in the sky, you've got to be realistic.
anyone knows how easy it is to be in a rush and creep up to 35 in a 30 limit, okay, so some people are doing ridiculous speeds yes, but i don't beleive that 2 million drivers in the UK are death-on-the road boy racer types.
Actually brethalysing more people would be easy, just stop more and make them take the test, it takes a couple of minutes. In australia, on some nights they will close a road, and only let people on once they have been brethalised.
I know you are not going to catch every drink driver, but at the moment the chance of getting caught is so slim. You don't need to catch ever single one to put other people off doing it, just make it so people actually think they might realistically get caught, which i dont think many do at the moment.
Related discussions
- Struggling with sleep
- My parent forces me to wake up at 5 am for GCSE's.
- Feel like an absolute failure
- Getting Kathy fit again. Take II
- I'm not disciplined enough for A-levels
- BAE Systems Glasoced
- HNC or University
- How to get work experience in Film and Television?
- Year1 children’s nursing
- Student Union Fresher’s Tickets
- How to get 8-9 hours sleep and pray fajr
- Am I being underpaid? Is this workplace abuse of overtime?
- Breaking up after concert ?! Ignored completely disrespect
- Paper 2 Question 2 Marking
- Veterinary Medicine
- Please help me understand what I can do
- Missed my photography aqa teacher hand in.
- Starting 6th Form and Want to maintain a good academic and social life
- Confusion at the schedule advertised at Sainsburys for a Services Assistant.
- Uni of exeter clearing
Latest
Trending
Posted 2 months ago
Warning! Be very careful using car insurance comparison sites.Last reply 4 months ago
What happens if you accidentally drive your car with no road tax or motLast reply 5 months ago
Best Cheap Car Insurance For Young Drivers Without a Black Box? How much do you pay?
