Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Commons transport committee wants minimum age raised to 18, ban on novice drivers carrying passengers between 10 and 20 at night, complete alcohol ban for new drivers and lessons spread over a year.

    Discuss!

    Full story here on the BBC, still no mention of further training being made available though...

    Do we think this can have ANY positive impacts? Do you want to have compulsory lessons on night and poor weather driving?

    Anyway, most of this will be a rehash of earlier threads so extra points for originality please folks; by which I mean, we've got to accept that experience can help with driving - as with anything, if you experience a situation you generally know what to do in that situation again. Also let's try and not let this descend into a "But it's old people that cause all the accidents!" Yes old people are a concern (a BIG romphing concern) so should the new legislation cover them as well?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Just to clarify a few points:
    Where do you get the blood alcohol bit from?
    The aim, as far as I can see, is for people to be that bit more mature before they start to drive on their own, although what the implications for when you are allowed to start learning is are unclear. How effective this will be is one of the debatable points.
    The passenger thing isn't about illegal driving, just that newly qualified drivers can't carry certain passengers at certain times. So if you learn to drive to ferry your 12 year old brother to school, you're fine in the sumer but somewhat snarfed in the winter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I do think that putting the age will do nothing at all, it just means that the accidents etc that are caused by inexperience will occur in older people instead of 17 year olds.
    As for not being able to carry passengers aged between 10-20 between 11pm - 5am it is probably a good thing aimed at reducing those who go out with all of their mates in the back of the car and endanger their lives as well as their friends, but then again its a very small majority who drive dangerously. I dont think its practical as i often take my friends home after a night out or the pictures and i dont think it would be fair i couldnt do this. People would probably do it illegaly anyway because the chances of them getting caught would, in my opinion, be rather small.

    I do believe in not drinking and driving as it would get people used to drinking OR driving rather than being able to do both.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    People often confuse maturity with experience in this argument however. A typical 17 year old is less mature than a 21 year old, hence on average, if both got into a car with zero experience after passing a test, the 17 year old is more likely to have an accident.

    That's a statistical fact.

    I personally think a more structured tuition system matched with two tests would be a good idea but difficult and confusing I suppose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think it's a good idea and i'm seventeen/learning to drive now.

    Just from looking at my friends that is - some really haven't matured since they were 14 and it scares me to think of them being responsible for tonnes of lethal metal :/ Also, i dont know if anyone agrees but i think there's often a real difference between 17/a level age and 18/university age because those two times in your life are so varied too. People often mature very quickly between 17 and 18 in my experience.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pghstochaj)

    I personally think a more structured tuition system matched with two tests would be a good idea but difficult and confusing I suppose.
    I can see the concerns but personally I agree if there has to be a change, it should be something along the lines of the suggestion above^

    My driving lessons lasted nearly a year anyway, so was nearly 18 by the time I passed. If I hadn't started learning at 17 I know I wouldn't have been able to get the job I did, or do most of the things driving has given me the freedom to do in the last year or two. It would have also meant me spending £££'s on train tickets to get to university and back, double/triple the price it costs me in diesel for the car. I feel i've paid for my lack of experience through insurance costs, and getting a big discount for my first year with no claims is a good system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    See, i think that train/coach is way cheaper! You can get it about 8 pound return from london by coach to anywhere if you book early enough! But yes, i agree with the freedom thing. Sometimes it's nice to just be able to go somewhere without worrying about booking beforehand etc
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I prefer a car for ease, lack of pre-planning and having transport when I get to my destination. On the other hand, if I go from Manchester to Nottingham, once fuel, insurance etc. is considered, the train is probably the better option. But I am old now and don't like wasting my time with trains unless I have to.

    If you just consider fuel though, it will always look cheaper. I love being able to drive to school at 17 but it would have been a fact of life if I couldn't have done.

    So my "structured approach" would be along the lines of:

    Education early, get children involved in understanding the dangers of cars, highway code, use of roads, hazard preception and book learning. As much as people disagree with the use of HP as part of the theory test, I feel it has a place early on in highlighting what are dangers, it's also more fun to do than multiple choice questions. Give younger children the chance to have more "practical" theory tests, "What would you do if...." to help teach them thought in pratical situations.

    17 years old: Allowed to drive as now with supervision under a provisional licence; either by a tutor or a parent (etc.). Limited to a set speed, required to have L plates. Not allowed on motorways. Structured tuition plan set up requiring the learner to be able to show skills shown within the plan either to parent or tutor, as now, but simply planned out properly rather than "well they seem all right on the road so they are ready for their test".

    Take a test during this year and this allows you a "amateur" driving licence which means still a limited maximum speed, use of a P plate (change of attitude needed from the general public, never going to happen though). Motorway is allowed but only with the same tuition you had under the provisional licence Limited passengers for certain times or similar, like suggested in the article.

    18 years old: Have to take a second test (which confirms whether or not you have slipped since your first test). Passing means no restrictions, just like passing now. Test will include more challenges, fewer time heavy things such as turns in the road which should be taken as easy at this stage. Will include a motorway section. I guess the motorway section is not so easy though as not everybody is close to a motorway, so either people travel to fewer "super test centres", only some centres offer it or it has to be ignored

    Popular with young people? Highly doubt it. Likely to save lives and improve driving? Possibly. In return, young drivers will most probably get cheaper insurance and any changes in costs to learn will probably be limited because of it.

    Finally, replace pass plus with a genuinely useful post-test "Advanced young driver" certificate which actually requires people to do what is requested of the course. Thus lowering insurance further and improving driving skills.

    I think currently people see that they start driving at 17, pass and then the world is at their feet when in reality, they know very little both maturity wise and driving skills wise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no i think that's a really constructive idea, being a "young person"! I'd feel much secure about my own aptitude if it were like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    17 has always seemed far too young for me. t is about maturity many 17 year olds (especially males) just don't have it.

    I am a better driver than most and I am not at test standard yet.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    As for the alcohol issues raised, there will be a small concession to allow for alcohol in food. The swiss have this policy for ALL drivers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    How soon are they planning to introduce these laws? Surely not as soon as this/next year ! :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AT82)
    I am a better driver than most and I am not at test standard yet.
    Hmm. I find it hard to believe you are better than 'most' drivers, when you're not even good enough to take the, frankly, piss easy test.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do not park on yellow lines, undertake, tailgate, skip lights, drink drive, drive without insurance etc, all things I see all the time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can't really see that raising the age will do much - nobody I know matured from 17 to 18.

    Zero limit on alcohol would be a bit draconian and won't stop people drink driving anyway. What happens if you get pulled over the day after you've had a few beers and there's still an (irrelevant) trace of alcohol in your system?

    Lessons spread over a year assumes everyone takes a year to learn how to drive safely. Sensible people will drive sensibly whether or not it took them two months or two years to learn. And idiots will still drive like idiots even if it takes them a year to pass.

    I do agree with the night time passenger restrictions though.

    The only sensible thing on that list is the passenger ban at night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I support it all, minus having to do lessons over a year. Perhaps get rid of the specific crash courses where people with no experience force it into a week or two, but if someone is able to actually get a lot of experience in their own car with a parent/friend/family member and pass in a few weeks, no real problem with them passing when they are ready early.

    Perhaps they should alter the pass rate, if you have been learning only a few weeks, then a harder pass rate (like one week you should get no more than 5 minors, 2-3 weeks then 10 minors and 1month or more the current rate).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Some good points here. Good to see reasoned ideas.
    Somewhat linked to this, there's a proposal from Europe to make the biking license harder to get, from 2011 they propose you face phased restrictions on the power of bike and category of license you can get/ride. Something of the same ilk may well be on the cards for cars, in much the same way that pgh.. suggests.
    The likely scenario for the UK will be :

    * Age 16 CBT Provisional Moped, Theory and hazard perception test, Off road manouvres test, on road test. Full P licence.
    * Age 17 CBT Provisional A1 motorcycle, Theory & hazard test. Off road test, on road test using 125cc bike. Full A1 licence. Restricted to 125cc 14 BHP for 2 years.
    * Age 19 CBT Provisional A2 motorcycle, Theory & hazard test. Off road test, on road test using 33 BHP bike greater than 500cc. Full A2 licence. Restricted to 47 BHP for 2 years.
    * Age 21 CBT Provisional A motorcycle, Theory & hazard test. Off road test, on road test using 47 BHP bike greater than 600cc. Full A licence.
    * Unrestricted Direct Access will remain but at age 24 years.
    (Taken from the Motorcycle Wiki at motorcycle.co.uk)
    (We can still object to this proposal - email your MEP!!!!!)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think everyone should have skid pan training. Knowing what it feels like when things go tits up gives a person the knowledge in the real world to know when to ease off the loud pedal a little bit.

    I also think some time spent in controlled conditions in a rear wheel driven car would be benificial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Raising age seems pointless. Not all 17s are rubbish drivers who are unsafe. They may be at risk of deaths, etc. but that is due to expensive insurance that force them to drive cheap and unsafe old cars with no safety features apart from a seatbelt. Zero alcohol sounds good though. Although a year's lessons is also seemingly pointless. Depends on the driver mainly. Some people will only need 3 months' worth and be good drivers for life. Because of this, people might rush their lessons to get a full licence before things change if they do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JC.)
    I think everyone should have skid pan training. Knowing what it feels like when things go tits up gives a person the knowledge in the real world to know when to ease off the loud pedal a little bit.
    Agreed. I've never done it on road, but its fun off road on wet grass.... . Controlling it takes a little learning.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.