Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now

Young drivers could face curfew Watch

    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Like most people here, I completely disagree with the idea of a curfew. It would essentially force younger people out of certain jobs.

    However, it really annoys me that my housemate got a quote on his insurance renewal and his premium would be £500 less than it would be for me to drive his car (a 1year old Micra) even though he's had 2 claims in the year, one of which was his fault! I think if you have an accident in your first 2 years of driving, lots of restrictions should be applied, but even then I don't think one should be a curfew.

    We need to target bad drivers and sort them out, not penalise everyone!


    Also, 1/5 of accidents involve a person 17-24. Let's assume there's about the same number of people these ages driving as the age brackets 25-32, 33-40, 41-48, 49-57, 58-70 and maybe even 70+. That's up to 7 groups. So why is 20% of accidents involving at least one party from 1/7th of the driving population a bad thing? Surely that's about what we would expect! It sounds like a heavily manipulated statistic to me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Thirty years on it is still unheard of that aircraft would fly without pilots. And that's with systems that cost millions of pounds. I don't see how any roll out into cars would be quicker.
    I'm assuming you're referring to commercial air transport, as unmanned aerial vehicles have been around for quite a while now. Commercial aircraft could be designed to be pilot-less, but there are many reasons why that'd be a bad idea; and delving into them would take this discussion way off topic - so I'll avoid. Cars - on the other hand - would be utterly pointless without the addition of at least one person within them. Therefore a need for total automation is not such an attractive prospect as it might be for airline owners in planes.

    Whilst we may be half a century away from entirely automated cars, we are already in the midst of cars which have multiple automatic safety devices. The inclusion of such could (and I believe will) significantly improve safety.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    In principle I agree with the motorway lessons idea, but I think in practical terms, it's not so workable. My closest motorway is an hour and a half away, so that would require a 3 hour lesson just to get there and back! I think perhaps the theory of motorways should be covered more in the theory test but in reality, I think dual carriageway driving is more or less sufficient.

    As for the minimum learning period, I would suggest a minimum number of hours rather than a minimum period of time (e.g. a year). After all, if you only do an hour's worth of learning a month, then that doesn't really amount to much. Also, I'm not sure how well the minimum period/number of hours will operate in practice because surely it would be basically compelling people to spend a lot of money on driving lessons. For example, I had a few 'formal' lessons but my Dad as an ex-driving instructor, taught me most of all. How would that be accounted for?

    While the policy reasons for zero-alcohol tolerance, curfews etc are obvious, they do make me cross. That would hinder my driving quite a bit - but not because I go out to late parties and drink drive, which is basically the point. I drive late at night for various reasons - the most recent one being to pick my Mum up from a work party!! And I often drive when I go out for a meal and have a glass of wine, then drive safely home again. I wouldn't be able to do that either and I'm not sure that such a restriction would be justified. Also, as I expect someone has already mentioned, a lot of young people are going to work shifts (bar work, shop work etc). A curfew would really hinder you.

    I don't think such strict rules based only on the assumption that all young people are the same is really going to help our generation's growing apathy towards the government. I agree that the rules should be very strict for those who do fit the stereotype and are caught drink driving, speeding or generally driving irresponsibly. In which case, the curfews, zero alcohol tolerance, etc are perfectly justified but let's not tar all newly qualified drivers with the same brush.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    One and a half hour sessions every week.
    That does seem to be more than the average from what I have heard from other drivers. I see no reason why it would need to be more than that. All said and done (with Pass Plus) I probably did 26-28 hours or so.

    In a pinch, I could've passed in 20 hours of lessons. Much less than that (say, 15 hours) and it wouldn't have been very sensible.

    Any rules should be aimed at those doing 15 hours or fewer. I don't think there is enough time to learn everything to a decent standard that way... Especially if they're adding more to the curriculum.
    Offline

    2
    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 are driving lessons unbelievably expensive? I'd say the cost is pretty closely aligned with what it'd have to be to make it worthwhile for a driving instructor. An hour of fuel and all the other associated costs with having someone drive a car, as well as your time and the requirement to make a living dictate roughly how much should be charged to learners.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    Any rules should be aimed at those doing 15 hours or fewer. I don't think there is enough time to learn everything to a decent standard that way... Especially if they're adding more to the curriculum.
    Perhaps not if you add more to the curriculum, but I passed easily 5 years ago with 15 hours of lessons and have driven safely ever since.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tycho)
    I'm assuming you're referring to commercial air transport, as unmanned aerial vehicles have been around for quite a while now. Commercial aircraft could be designed to be pilot-less, but there are many reasons why that'd be a bad idea; and delving into them would take this discussion way off topic - so I'll avoid. Cars - on the other hand - would be utterly pointless without the addition of at least one person within them. Therefore a need for total automation is not such an attractive prospect as it might be for airline owners in planes.

    Whilst we may be half a century away from entirely automated cars, we are already in the midst of cars which have multiple automatic safety devices. The inclusion of such could (and I believe will) significantly improve safety.
    Unmanned is not the same as un-piloted. There is still a human controlling every movement of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, even if they aren't physically on board,
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    Unmanned is not the same as un-piloted. There is still a human controlling every movement of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, even if they aren't physically on board,
    True.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tycho)
    Perhaps not if you add more to the curriculum, but I passed easily 5 years ago with 15 hours of lessons and have driven safely ever since.
    What would you say is the minimum time required to be able to do everything to a safe standard then?

    Sure, there might be those with some driving experience who pop along for a few lessons... But for the average person, there must be a minimum time required under instruction to do everything, rigt?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    Unmanned is not the same as un-piloted. There is still a human controlling every movement of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, even if they aren't physically on board,
    UAVs can be, and in some cases are, completely autonomous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    What would you say is the minimum time required to be able to do everything to a safe standard then?

    Sure, there might be those with some driving experience who pop along for a few lessons... But for the average person, there must be a minimum time required under instruction to do everything, rigt?

    I don't know actually. Obviously everyone is different and so some will be capable of passing earlier than others. The test - I suppose - determines whether someone is good enough to get their license, not the amount of time it has taken them to get to the test. By making the test more comprehensive and demanding, you'd also (by proxy) be increasing the amount of time people needed to train for in order to meet the minimum requirement. Perhaps that's a better way forward than making some arbitrary minimum hourly requirements?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    UAVs can be, and in some cases are, completely autonomous.
    Do you have an example?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    Do you have an example?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North...7B#section_1is one of the more interesting military drones. Granted it was more a proof of concept and never completed it's testing, but it was nevertheless a great achievement.

    http://www.lehmannaviation.com/la/la100.php but you can just buy this off the shelf for your own entertainment!

    http://www.guidedsys.com/VTOL/ and these are for when you want a little more ooomph.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North...7B#section_1is one of the more interesting military drones. Granted it was more a proof of concept and never completed it's testing, but it was nevertheless a great achievement.

    http://www.lehmannaviation.com/la/la100.php but you can just buy this off the shelf for your own entertainment!

    http://www.guidedsys.com/VTOL/ and these are for when you want a little more ooomph.
    OK, I'll let you have that one. But you're comparing what is essentially a glorified toy to something that can carry hundreds of passengers. :P When you look at the sort of UAV that interacts with aircraft in real life they're pretty massive and also controlled by humans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    1/5 serious crashes involve a young driver yet they don't give numbers on who was at fault. Oh and what about the other 4/5? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This curfew thing has come up in the past, and is probably not going to happen. I believe the driving test has been revamped recently, and I think including motorway driving in it is an excellent idea.

    I am not too worried about it to be honest, it is completely unreasonable to expect young drivers not to drive at night or have passengers in the car and surely this will be recognised and not go through.

    I don't get in the car after any alcohol either, and neither should anyone else.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is pathetic.

    Statistics don't lie but they can be used in a way which suits them. You can not tar everybody with the same brush. I am 20 in July, but work, pay bills, study and do not drink, go clubbing or break the law. It is not fair to make my life more difficult because I was born in 1993 as opposed to 1983. I already don't know how I am going to be able to drive once I pass my test, and now they're talking about making it more inaccessible for us.

    How about they focus on education, making sure instructors teach properly, not failing people for silly things and making the roads safer without discrimination?

    This is upsetting.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rascacielos)
    In principle I agree with the motorway lessons idea, but I think in practical terms, it's not so workable. My closest motorway is an hour and a half away, so that would require a 3 hour lesson just to get there and back! I think perhaps the theory of motorways should be covered more in the theory test but in reality, I think dual carriageway driving is more or less sufficient.

    As for the minimum learning period, I would suggest a minimum number of hours rather than a minimum period of time (e.g. a year). After all, if you only do an hour's worth of learning a month, then that doesn't really amount to much. Also, I'm not sure how well the minimum period/number of hours will operate in practice because surely it would be basically compelling people to spend a lot of money on driving lessons. For example, I had a few 'formal' lessons but my Dad as an ex-driving instructor, taught me most of all. How would that be accounted for?

    While the policy reasons for zero-alcohol tolerance, curfews etc are obvious, they do make me cross. That would hinder my driving quite a bit - but not because I go out to late parties and drink drive, which is basically the point. I drive late at night for various reasons - the most recent one being to pick my Mum up from a work party!! And I often drive when I go out for a meal and have a glass of wine, then drive safely home again. I wouldn't be able to do that either and I'm not sure that such a restriction would be justified. Also, as I expect someone has already mentioned, a lot of young people are going to work shifts (bar work, shop work etc). A curfew would really hinder you.

    I don't think such strict rules based only on the assumption that all young people are the same is really going to help our generation's growing apathy towards the government. I agree that the rules should be very strict for those who do fit the stereotype and are caught drink driving, speeding or generally driving irresponsibly. In which case, the curfews, zero alcohol tolerance, etc are perfectly justified but let's not tar all newly qualified drivers with the same brush.
    Well said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tycho)
    You can't have a zero-alcohol limit otherwise you'd have no drivers. I think what they mean is the minimum possible alcohol limit. Humans naturally have a certain amount of alcohol in their blood which isn't as a result of drinking an alcoholic beverage.
    France seem to do fine with a zero-alcohol limit.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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

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