[Mike Gray]

Today’s hot topic is young drivers; the latest government report suggests there should be strict rules on what time of day they can drive, who they can give a lift to and how long they must drive before getting a full licence. Many support the report and the measures could mean cheaper car insurance, but what do you think? Are you a young driver who might be affected?

http://www.rac.co.uk/advice/motoring...surance-costs/

[Loony]

No is the simple answer.

It does not matter what age or what restrictions you put in place.
Experience gained from actually driving is what makes you a better and safer driver.

Saying you can not drive at such and such a time or when it's dark or with more people in the car would simply prevent people from getting jobs and working.

With everything you do in life there are often risks and sometimes you can never practically remove those risks.

[Alasdair RAC]

Interesting perspective - it would be great to hear from a young driver who might be affected also.
^Alasdair

[Rolebama]

Although I can't argue Loony's logic, I feel that there should be an element of a learning curve in driving as in everything else we do. I feel that restrictions should be put in place until any new driver has learnt to drive. I see no problem with a curfew and passenger limitations. After all, we put up with something similar with regard to obtaining motorcycle licences. Not the curfew admittedly, but a restriction on power outputs.
In defence of a curfew and passenger limitations, I can only say that most of the young driver deaths reported in our local paper occur late in the evening or at night, and there are invariably lists of passengers who were also killed or injured.

[Santa]

Without seeing a full analysis, it's hard to reach a conclusion. A few years ago there was a terrible accident locally in which three teenagers died, and one received life changing injuries. It happened on an urban road, in daylight, at around 6pm. Only one car (A 1.2 Corsa) was involved.

When my daughter first acquired a car, she offered her friend a lift to an event they were both attending. Her friend's father would not allow her to go, as he said my daughter did not have enough experience. At the time, we both thought he was being unnecessarily controlling - These days I am not so sure, although my daughter was and is a pretty safe driver.

My thought is that the wider introduction of 'black box' recorders, fitted as part of an insurance deal, and which reward good driving, may well have a beneficial effect.

[davesdad]

Young drivers are restricted in Australia & New Zealand,any one watch Booze Patrol were the oz police set up drink/drug testing

[Snowball]

What age constitutes a "young driver"? Does anyone really believe that, when someone reaches the age of 25, an overnight 'switch' clicks in and they awake to a state of maturity? Fact is, some youngsters mature very early, and some are still immature when they collect their pension! Perhaps any restrictions should be based on a perceived period of time that would allow a driver to become fully proficient, and that period be from when they pass their test - regardless of age.

[smudger]

Its not the restrictions that are the problem, ...its enforcing them?

The seat belt law, was passed many years ago, yet after all this time, there are still some drivers who need a £60 fine to remind them to wear them,...... and that's just the ones who get caught,...many more get away with it? :confused:

[Miss Breakdown]

In some cases restrictions are good however insurance costs are pushing young drivers into small cars that in the event off a serious accident wont keep them safe these two girls were driving normally both died if they had been in a larger car they may have survived.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictured.html

Miss breakdown
.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

Its not the restrictions that are the problem, ...its enforcing them?

The seat belt law, was passed many years ago, yet after all this time, there are still some drivers who need a £60 fine to remind them to wear them,...... and that's just the ones who get caught,...many more get away with it? :confused:

Agreed, smudger, and the culprits are just as likely to be so-called 'mature drivers' as they are young drivers. Hence my opinion that any restrictions should be based on age at the time of passing their test - not simply because they are young.

Originally Posted by Miss Breakdown

In some cases restrictions are good however insurance costs are pushing young drivers into small cars that in the event off a serious accident wont keep them safe these two girls were driving normally both died if they had been in a larger car they may have survived.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictured.html

Miss breakdown
.

I agree with your observations, Miss breakdown. The problem is further exacerbated by the silly VED ratings that seriously push up road tax for the larger cars - rates that are founded on typical government tampering, and nowhere near reflecting true CO2 performance of cars. In any case, the already applied excise duty and VAT on fuel determines the appropriate levy according to vehicle size.

[Rolebama]

The strange thing is though that it is not always necessary to buy a smaller car for cheaper insurance. I bought my current car off a friend who had bought it for his son when he had just passed his test. After accumulating two years NCB, the son went on to buy a car of his choice when he could afford to pay his own insurance.

I really do try not to lump all young drivers together in terms of attitude or maturity, I would rather refer to 'new' drivers as people of all ages decide to take their Test. However, it is obvious from all the statistics available that 'young' drivers are a higher risk.

As to the deer incident, I have seen the aftermath of three incidents involving full-size deer where the legs have been knocked out from under them, and the main body has come back through the windscreen. One, years ago, involved a Morris Oxford, and the damage to the front of the roof and the A posts was very surprising. All three incidents were at the north end of Ashdown Forest, where the road is quite 'bendy' so I don't think excess speed was an issue.

[smudger]

Quote..."The strange thing is though that it is not always necessary to buy a smaller car for cheaper insurance."

Aye! I was surprised when I went to insure our present car, a 2Ltr Mazda 323F Sport, it was only £4 a month more than I was paying for that 748cc Smart car?

[ficklejade]

Couple of points from my son and his friends, mostly early 20s:

Curfew impractical - I need car to get to work, often having to leave at 4.30am. (Another doesn't finish work till 1am.)

Seems a bit daft saying you can't travel in the dark; do those numpties actually realise for the bulk of December here it's just getting light at 9 and is dark again by 4; let's face it, we all had to walk to school in the dark!

You can't go anywhere here by public transport after 6pm - a car is a necessity, not a luxury. It's isolating.

Might agree with graduated test such a motorway driving, but it's going to add a lot more considering nearest motorway so far away and what about the poor sods in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland?

[Snowball]

FJ, you are spotting the pitfalls usually associated with the bungling, knee-jerk bureaucrats. But, as per usual, when the impracticalities are pointed out, cloth-ears will come into play!:mad:

[Alasdair RAC]

Interesting input from everyone. The 'night-driving' curfew has also been highlighted by our Facebook community as impractical. If that was removed do you think the rest stands up? And do you think 'young drivers' should be swapped for 'recently passed'?
^Alasdair

[Rolebama]

I do not consider a curfew impractical, as, along with a lot of other things, circumstances could always be taken into consideration and compromises/exemptions can be made. I think most people see some of the ideas put forward as infringements on their liberty and react as such. I believe driving to be a privelege, not a right, and this seems to be overlooked.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Alasdair RAC

Interesting input from everyone. The 'night-driving' curfew has also been highlighted by our Facebook community as impractical. If that was removed do you think the rest stands up? And do you think 'young drivers' should be swapped for 'recently passed'?^Alasdair

Seems to be a very logical alternative.

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I do not consider a curfew impractical, as, along with a lot of other things, circumstances could always be taken into consideration and compromises/exemptions can be made. I think most people see some of the ideas put forward as infringements on their liberty and react as such.

I have reservations about the 'infringements on their liberty' approach when the matter under review concerns reducing risks of injury and/or death for other parties AND themselves.

I believe driving to be a privelege, not a right, and this seems to be overlooked.

I fully agree with this opinion. And, with this view in mind, isn't it diametrically opposite to being an infringement of liberty?

[Loony]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I do not consider a curfew impractical, as, along with a lot of other things, circumstances could always be taken into consideration and compromises/exemptions can be made. I think most people see some of the ideas put forward as infringements on their liberty and react as such. I believe driving to be a privelege, not a right, and this seems to be overlooked.

Please don't think I am being argumentative here.

If a curfew prevents you getting to work and back,how is that not impractical.

You could not have compromises or exemptions in my eyes otherwise the rules would just be flouted.

Plenty of young drivers have no problems but granted yes some are not so lucky.

I just honestly do not see an easy answer to the problem or a practical one.

Perhaps a restriction on cc or power output may be a good idea to prevent inexperienced drivers ending up behind the wheel of high powered cars.
However even then I accept you can still end up in a lot grief behind the wheel of any 1 litre lower performance car.

[ficklejade]

Actually the points I put down were the views of my son and several of his friends, though I did edit it for language as the discussion was quite exuberant in its language! That I personally happen to agree with the points raised is neither here nor there.

As regards driving being a privilege, of course it is and it needs continual practice, however long you've been driving. So these young people and many others like them have worked hard to pass their tests and have worked hard to get their own vehicle and pay insurance; they have earned the privilege of driving and are only to aware of the consequences of being stupid; it would negate them having jobs and the freedom to join in social occasions.

Furthermore, though Mull may be an exception in that most youngsters are exposed from Primary school to the Mull Rally and the very real dangers of motorsport (especially on single track roads in the dark!!), very few of them are tempted to play silly games and they all know they'll be reported if they try. There have been a couple of idiots, one who mended his ways and the other (whose parents had more money than sense) wrote off three cars before he was packed off the island. It might also be worth mentioning that last weekend's Mull Rally was won by a local lad who passed his test first go and has a real talent for rallying insofar as he gets major sponsorship. And two young teenagers from the island, who, with local rally drivers help, built their own rally car from scratch, paid for their entry to their first ever rally and finished, albeit last, but they did finish, which is more than some of the top Scottish Rally Championship drivers did!

Of course, the level of major injuries and deaths amongst our younger drivers is too high but I would like to see the figures for older "recently passed" drivers who may also lack the skills; I liked that name.

[smudger]

If they did impose "restrictions or curfews" how would they police it?

The police are having problems enforcing the existing laws as it is, without giving them more. Of course they could put more patrols out on the roads, but that would cost more money, and I don't see the government coughing up for that. :confused:

[Snowball]

Since this thread is aimed at "young drivers", it should be remembered that some young drivers, not having much experience since passing their test, are probably involved in RTC's due to being unable to deal with impatient bullying tactics by so-called mature drivers.
I wonder what that percentage is?
I have seen young drivers, obviously recently passed and possibly a bit nervous, subjected to aggressive actions, including tailgating and deliberate cutting in' from older drivers.
As I have already said, any restrictions should be based on time when passing the test - not related to age. It is conceivable that, at the time of passing their test, an older driver would take longer to become proficient than a young driver.

Any restrictions should, as far as possible, only be related to car-and-driver in things like vehicle power and where type of socialising raises risks. However, control of driving behaviour is a matter that the authorities should apply across the board. The danger is that of knee-jerk reactions that penalize a specific group, largely based on economical factors, and a 'hope' that such restrictions work.

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Since this thread is aimed at "young drivers", it should be remembered that some young drivers, not having much experience since passing their test, are probably involved in RTC's due to being unable to deal with impatient bullying tactics by so-called mature drivers.
I wonder what that percentage is?
I have seen young drivers, obviously recently passed and possibly a bit nervous, subjected to aggressive actions, including tailgating and deliberate cutting in' from older drivers.
As I have already said, any restrictions should be based on time when passing the test - not related to age. It is conceivable that, at the time of passing their test, an older driver would take longer to become proficient than a young driver.

Any restrictions should, as far as possible, only be related to car-and-driver in things like vehicle power and where type of socialising raises risks. However, control of driving behaviour is a matter that the authorities should apply across the board. The danger is that of knee-jerk reactions that penalize a specific group, largely based on economical factors, and a 'hope' that such restrictions work.

Yes, there is some truth in that. My daughter sometimes gets hooted at by impatient drivers behind her who think that she should move off quicker at roundabouts or road junctions.

[Rolebama]

I agree that there are not enough Police to monitor all the various 'new' offences being introduced, but most of them are not new, they are knee-jerk reactions. I think it is beyond time that our Court Services became self-sustaining. An example of this is the FPN for driving with no insurance. I don't think it unreasonable that a fine should equate to the amount insurance would cost. I read the other day that the average premium for a new, young driver has topped £5.000. A fine of £200 is hardly a real deterrent.

[Santa]

Penalties for uninsured drivers:

If you’re caught driving a vehicle you’re not insured to drive, the police could give you a fixed penalty of £300 and 6 penalty points.

If the case goes to court you could get:

a maximum fine of £5,000
disqualified from driving
The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases, destroy the vehicle that’s being driven uninsured.

I get the impression that seizure is now the norm, rather than the exception. I was on an estate in South London a while ago and noticed an extraordinary number of cars in the street that were wearing clamps. When I asked, I was told that they were not taxed or insured and that they were going to be hauled off to the pound.

[Rolebama]

Sorry, I was not aware that the FPN had risen to £300, although I still don't think that is enough deterrent. (As a matter of fact, the average fine in the mid 70s for driving uninsured was a £40/50 fine, and an endorsement. (Equal roughly to three points on licence today.) I do not think that £300 even keeps up with inflation.)
As to vehicles being seized and destroyed, I saw a clip on one of the Police fly-on-the-wall progs recently where a driver was stopped for driving uninsured, but hecause he could get a driver to the car who was insured to drive it, he was allowed to wait outside the pound. the insured driver turned up and the car was released. A while later, the same uninsured driver was stopped driving the same car by the same PCs. I watched the prog to the end hoping to hear what happened to the driver, but it was not mentioned.

[Snowball]

Thinking in the long term, I don't believe for one moment that the mooted restrictions will make any significant difference; one way or the other. On a daily basis, you can see drivers of all ages, male and female, breaking a considerable number of rules. Most of these actions are deliberately taken, as they would have been explained as taboo during tuition, and certainly avoided during the actual driving test.
With such a situation, the only way that this behaviour will be curbed is by fear of consequence under the law.

[Laura RAC]

Thanks for all your comments, this is a very interesting and nuanced topic. What are your opinions on the Pass Plus training course? And what about optional further tests for drivers after they've had some real life driving experience - perhaps this could lead to cheaper insurance as they prove their skills?

[Santa]

When my daughter got her first car, we found that 'pass plus' was of no interest at all to insurers. The only solution I can see is real time monitoring by the 'black boxes' that some insurance companies offer for young drivers. These reward the responsible and penalise the others. They also give direct positive feedback to show a driver that they are doing well, or not.

[ficklejade]

Seemingly, some of the earlier black boxes weren't that great! A couple of son's friends got them with their insurance on new cars via a certain auto dealer. Everything went fine over the winter but come May, they both started getting several communications about bad driving habits creeping in, notably driving very erratically. As there was a cost element to them, the lads and their parents started collating when these instances occurred (date/time, etc., that the insurance co. were using against the lads). They also contacted other young people with black boxes on the island and they were getting the same, yet none of them were getting communications when on the mainland, nor in cities with congestion. None of them had been caught on driving offences and local coppers are very watchful of younger drivers but it was an ex-copper who hit on the idea that the black boxes couldn't deal with being able to drive along a single track road at reasonable speed one minute and then meeting ferry traffic or the odd visitors who don't know how to deal with passing places. As traffic got lighter come September, their driving had, according to the black box, improved.

One of the parents who's son had been affected got in touch with the insurance company, armed with several youngsters details of times etc. Fortunately, he was one of the wealthier element and of tough fibre and challenged them on the matter. He was also sufficiently influential to have words with the auto dealer regarding the matter and the restriction that young people getting one of their cars were restricted as to the insurer.

Long and short, plus several black boxes installed in others' vehicles, with everyone coming up with defaults and the insurer got the black box producer to check their software - no-one had programmed in single track roads!!! I gather (and sincerely hope) things have improved!

However, it is a classic example - again - of the one size fits all rule!

[smudger]

Instead of constantly picking on Younger drivers, why don't they offer "safer driving courses" to the drivers who have poor driving history, the ones that make the most insurance claims, get more than average speeding, or careless driving tickets?,

That way, its the people who do need help with improving their driving skills, that get the attention, and not just the newly qualified young drivers . :cool: