Young drivers to be banned from driving at night? Watch

xoxAngel_Kxox
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
I think a lot of young people (particularly boys) drive recklessly when they first start. The freedom goes to your head, you want to be out on the roads, and at night you think you can get away with driving as fast as you want because there aren't many people around - they're still too young to realise they're not invincible.

Stopping them driving at night wouldn't work. What about if they have jobs, or need to visit sick family members, or have another kind of emergency?

I think - and I've always said this - that drivers should have a black box for the first year after passing, and should only be allowed to take it out if they have been shown to have driven sensibly. Really, everyone should have one, as it would help keep premiums down for those who do drive properly, but I know that's not practical. I also think everyone should go on a speed awareness course as a part of their driving theory, because so many people I know have said they're eye opening. I haven't been on one myself (I try to keep to sensible speeds, but that doesn't mean I'm always perfect) but they say they don't speed after being on the course, so that could be a good idea.
2
reply
the beer
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Alleging this is all caused by female drivers is a total nonsense.
Bit rich considering your previous comments.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Drewski)
While it makes sense, how the hell do you police it?
With some difficulty, but how do you police the law that makes killing illegal. You don't. You punish those that do it.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
What about if they have jobs, or need to visit sick family members, or have another kind of emergency?
They manage the situation in exactly the same way they did before passing the test. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Good bloke)
With some difficulty, but how do you police the law that makes killing illegal. You don't. You punish those that do it.
But that relies on having evidence that it happened.

You can find a dead body. How do you find a 22yr old with a 16yr old passenger?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Drewski)
But that relies on having evidence that it happened.

You can find a dead body. How do you find a 22yr old with a 16yr old passenger?
You stop the car, ask the driver to wind the window down, give a cheery greeting ('Hello, hello. What 'ave we 'ere' is traditional) and proceed from there, enquiring into identities, licences and ages as you go.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Good bloke)
You stop the car, ask the driver to wind the window down, give a cheery greeting ('Hello, hello. What 'ave we 'ere' is traditional) and proceed from there, enquiring into identities, licences and ages as you go.
I'm not stopping any cars... And the paltry number of traffic police out and about aren't doing so either.

So it's another unenforceable rule, just like the mobile phone ban.
0
reply
Sophee7
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
what age would qualify as a ''young driver''?
0
reply
xDron3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
Would probably be acceptable if in turn Insurance was lowered by about 4 fold but I know it wouldn't.

Thankfully I've already passed but the rules are just insane, you wouldn't be able to go to the beach with your mates or take them to the airport even for a holiday lol. It's just stripping even more freedom, why don't you crack down on the drivers who cause the problems more often rather than having blanket rules and a prejudice against young drivers.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by xDron3)
why don't you crack down on the drivers who cause the problems more often rather than having blanket rules and a prejudice against young drivers.
The thing is that the young (7% of drivers) are involved in 25% of accidents, so this is cracking down on the people who cause the trouble. 25% of them have an accident within a year of passing their test.
0
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I know this won't be popular, but I don't think young guys should be allowed to drive until they are over 21 and probably 25 or something like that. They are the absolutely worst drivers on the roads without doubt, the most prone to crashing and the most likely to cause death or serious injury to others and themselves. Anyone driving for a while will see incredible miscalculation, outrageous speeding and overconfidence and contempt for other drivers are all a standard feature for many young males in charge of vehicles.
If studies showed black people had a higher rate of propensity for accidents than white people, would you be in favour of banning black people from driving?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by desou)
If studies showed black people had a higher rate of propensity for accidents than white people, would you be in favour of banning black people from driving?
The newly-qualified young do not have a higher rate of accidents - they have an astonishingly higher rate of accidents! And we know exactly why.

It is because the risk analysis functions of the brain are not fully developed until you are around 25 or 26 years old. There is a pretty good argument for having a minimum driving age of 25.
0
reply
krinyapajti
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
I think a lot of young people (particularly boys) drive recklessly when they first start. The freedom goes to your head, you want to be out on the roads, and at night you think you can get away with driving as fast as you want because there aren't many people around - they're still too young to realise they're not invincible.

Stopping them driving at night wouldn't work. What about if they have jobs, or need to visit sick family members, or have another kind of emergency?

I think - and I've always said this - that drivers should have a black box for the first year after passing, and should only be allowed to take it out if they have been shown to have driven sensibly. Really, everyone should have one, as it would help keep premiums down for those who do drive properly, but I know that's not practical. I also think everyone should go on a speed awareness course as a part of their driving theory, because so many people I know have said they're eye opening. I haven't been on one myself (I try to keep to sensible speeds, but that doesn't mean I'm always perfect) but they say they don't speed after being on the course, so that could be a good idea.
This. This wins the thread.
0
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Good bloke)
The newly-qualified young do not have a higher rate of accidents - they have an astonishingly higher rate of accidents! And we know exactly why.

It is because the risk analysis functions of the brain are not fully developed until you are around 25 or 26 years old. There is a pretty good argument for having a minimum driving age of 25.
No there's not. That's an absurd, draconian impingement on the liberty of an already disadvantaged social cohort in response to an actually pretty minor problem (Britain already has incredibly safe roads) that isn't even supported by a close look at the evidence.


The thing with young drivers is that they are also by definition inexperienced, and studies that control for this demonstrate that actually, it is the lack of experience rather than the age of the driver that has the greatest statistical significance.


So the obvious solution is to ban all drivers with less than three years driving experience.



Here's the quote:

"Of the studies that attempted to quantify the relative importance of age and experience factors, most found a more powerful effect from length of licensure."

Here's the link:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...89580802677807
Last edited by desou; 1 month ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by desou)
Here's the quote:

"Of the studies that attempted to quantify the relative importance of age and experience factors, most found a more powerful effect from length of licensure."
Here is the more important quote you missed (from your own link):

The studies consistently found that teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25, after controlling for length of licensure.
0
reply
xoxAngel_Kxox
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Good bloke)
They manage the situation in exactly the same way they did before passing the test. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Before passing the test they would either have to get a bus/train assuming they're on a route and they run late enough, or pay for a taxi, which can cost a lot at night. In an emergency or urgent situation this is not good enough. The whole point of learning how to drive is to make it easier to get about. Why should a safe 18yo driver have to struggle like this - with a car sitting on the drive - just because other people are reckless?

I agree that driving is not a right, but ALL young people shouldn't have their privilege taken away from them because of the actions of the minority of young drivers.

As I mentioned, black box insurance would solve the problem much better than any night time ban.
1
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Good bloke)
Here is the more important quote you missed (from your own link):

The studies consistently found that teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25, after controlling for length of licensure.
I didn't "miss" anything thanks, and I'd ask you to choose your words more carefully in the future.


Maybe if you'd have read a bit more carefully, you'd have seen that was mainly driven by the extremely high rates of accidents experienced by 16 year old drivers, which we don't have in the UK, so that particular stat isn't actually as relevant as it might first appear to the careless reader.


"Studies that distinguished 16-year-olds found that crash rates for novice 16-year-olds were higher than rates for novice 17-year-olds"


I'd strongly encourage you to read links more carefully in future before retorting with smart alec comments, and perhaps show a little more humility and respect for the person you are quoting. You might be surprised to find that you don't actually know as much about this topic as you think.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
I agree that driving is not a right, but ALL young people shouldn't have their privilege taken away from them because of the actions of the minority of young drivers.
Just think of it as part of the process of protecting other road users and the puiblic while people are learning to be a competent driver, just as new learners a few years ago had to be reconciled to having a theory test, and those of 1935 had to reconcile themselves to having to take a test at all.
0
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
Before passing the test they would either have to get a bus/train assuming they're on a route and they run late enough, or pay for a taxi, which can cost a lot at night. In an emergency or urgent situation this is not good enough. The whole point of learning how to drive is to make it easier to get about. Why should a safe 18yo driver have to struggle like this - with a car sitting on the drive - just because other people are reckless?

I agree that driving is not a right, but ALL young people shouldn't have their privilege taken away from them because of the actions of the minority of young drivers.

As I mentioned, black box insurance would solve the problem much better than any night time ban.
Absolutely. Discrimination based on age is already illegal, we need to protect our U25s, not put in stupid, unscientific and draconian laws that massively infringe upon their ability to partake in society.
3
reply
xDron3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by Good bloke)
The thing is that the young (7% of drivers) are involved in 25% of accidents, so this is cracking down on the people who cause the trouble. 25% of them have an accident within a year of passing their test.
What's to say that this law will only cause people to drive unlawfully? Potentially causing more pursuits and uninsured drivers. How many of these accidents are caused in rush hour traffic? How many are actually caused at night on quieter roads?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (143)
24.49%
Pop (142)
24.32%
Jazz (26)
4.45%
Classical (32)
5.48%
Hip-Hop (103)
17.64%
Electronic (42)
7.19%
Indie (96)
16.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed