[olduser]

I found this on BBC news website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5jvz0dqo

Has anyone any thoughts.

I have grandchildren in Australia, they tell me after a provisional licence they are restricted in a similar way to the AA proposals.

They feel they would be under pressure if they were allowed to carry mates in the car but there is pressure on them to go in separate cars out of town to race.

When I learned to drive (a long time ago) I past my test but I didn't own a car, I did some driving for a family friend (he was a Hay, Straw and Seed merchant), shifting sacks about, collecting samples, delivering agricultural seeds.

My first job was for an Electrical Wholesaler and involved deliveries, I think I would be in my 20's before I owned my own car.

I was brought up in the country, so I drove tractors cars and lorries on farms from an early age, it was sort of normal.

I think it was that background that leaves me unimpressed by inappropriate speed.

[Drivingforfun]

I don't really know how to comment on the wider subject but, just when it comes to pressure, I personally think "peer pressure" is a lame excuse for making a conscious decision that you know is wrong or unhealthy, whether driving-related or anything else like smoking. People experience peer pressure all throughout their lives and I don't think it's viable to remove all possible exposure to it

I'm not arguing for anarchy or anything, if restricting everyone because of a few idiots saves some lives it may well be worth doing so! I just wonder if there's a better solution to creating lots and lots of specific restrictive laws, like teaching people to be resilient to peer pressure, which will serve them for their entire life??

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

I don't really know how to comment on the wider subject but, just when it comes to pressure, I personally think "peer pressure" is a lame excuse for making a conscious decision that you know is wrong or unhealthy, whether driving-related or anything else like smoking. People experience peer pressure all throughout their lives and I don't think it's viable to remove all possible exposure to it

I'm not arguing for anarchy or anything, if restricting everyone because of a few idiots saves some lives it may well be worth doing so! I just wonder if there's a better solution to creating lots and lots of specific restrictive laws, like teaching people to be resilient to peer pressure, which will serve them for their entire life??

I agree, looking at the problem in that way teaching people to resist peer pressure would be a logical way to solve the problem but herein lies a whole new can of worms.
I would say that advertising would be almost useless if we were all impervious to peer pressure.

Should we make new drivers have to pass a physiological test to see if they are going to be safe
drivers?

How often do we see on forums like this, "congratulations on passing your test, now you can start to learn to drive". (or something similar)

New drivers are vulnerable, they have been driving with another brain looking out for them, suddenly they are on there own.
As a learner, they were getting a little (these days very little) protection from the L plate, once that comes off, you are fair game for all other road users.

I think most people in their late teens are desperate to please someone. (at any age we would rather be liked than disliked)
As we get older and more experienced we learn we cannot please everyone, and there are limits (legal and moral) as to how far we are prepared to go to gain brownie points.

So, I think, rather than finding a way through that can of worms, it is easier to consider restrictions on new drivers for everyone's safety.

But, and it is a big but, that is only my opinion.

[Rolebama]

Just after the change to motorcycle tests and entitlement changes, the Minister of Transport was invited to take part in an outside broadcast. He was asked why there was no similar restrictions on cars. The Minister scoffed at the question because as far as he was concerned young, new drivers could not afford a performance car.
As he was making this comment the camera panned back to show a field full of Lambos, Ferraris, Astons, McLrens etc. At this point a runner was sent to ask the owners to come and stand by their cars. There were hundreds of these cars, and the oldest driver had just had his nineteenth birthday. The Minister blustered about how they must have scoured the country for these people, to which the presenter pointed out that this was just from that county, and they were the only ones who answered the ad which had been placed in the county gazette.

[Mark07]

My personal opinion is that this is a tricky topic to legislate for. As always, the devil would be in the detail.

Lets face it, the issue here is really about young men, but any restriction would need to gender neutral.

It's been a number of years since I was under 21, but I can't argue with the suggestion that the more young men that gather together increases the likelihood of one of them doing something stupid (generally speaking). I imagine there's lots of statistics and psychologists who'd back that up.

This proposal of restricting young people sharing a car is clearly offered with the right intentions - saving lives, but how enforceable is it? Is it fair on female drivers who tend to be safer? Will this result in more cars/young drivers on the road? Should other age groups have restrictions be placed upon them?

The news article that @olduser linked to states that drivers over 70 are increasingly getting into accidents (+12% year-on-year), would anyone seriously propose that age group must have a passenger under X age in order for them to drive?

[olduser]

First, the the problem is predominantly young males but I have seen cars full of females being just about as daft.

The elderly in my view is a different problem, with age reaction times increase, older drivers compensate for this by not getting into situations where everything depends on quick reactions.

But this offends other road users, e.g. old will leave space following a car, young will at first try to speed up old by following too close, if this fails they will make a dangerous overtake (putting himself and old at risk) to occupy the space old was leaving.
The irony is, they can still only go as fast as the vehicle that was in front of old.

The point is, old is not acting dangerously, old is sensibly compensating for the problem, old has acquired years of experience, old can see what can go wrong, while young has no idea.

I am not suggesting there are not old drivers who should not be driving, there are.
But they are breaking the law, and in so doing they will probably find their insurers will not cover the next accident.

In their defence, very old cars limited the driving age because of the physical effort required to drive, and cars were not woven into the fabric of life as they are now.

Today, you want food so you have to get into the car because the supermarket bought cheap out of town land to get plenty of parking, and at the same time killed of the local shops.
Young just hasn't time to do olds shopping what with texting, social media, and getting a few in because he drives better that way.

[olduser]

If you are curious about reaction time you could try:

https://skill-test.net/reaction

[Mark07]

Tbf, increasingly when GenZ want shopping they get it delivered - though I take your broader point.

[Mark07]

Originally Posted by olduser

If you are curious about reaction time you could try:

https://skill-test.net/reaction

My first attempt, I'm sure I could get it down with some practice.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Just after the change to motorcycle tests and entitlement changes, the Minister of Transport was invited to take part in an outside broadcast. He was asked why there was no similar restrictions on cars. The Minister scoffed at the question because as far as he was concerned young, new drivers could not afford a performance car.
As he was making this comment the camera panned back to show a field full of Lambos, Ferraris, Astons, McLrens etc. At this point a runner was sent to ask the owners to come and stand by their cars. There were hundreds of these cars, and the oldest driver had just had his nineteenth birthday. The Minister blustered about how they must have scoured the country for these people, to which the presenter pointed out that this was just from that county, and they were the only ones who answered the ad which had been placed in the county gazette.

When CBT was introduced in 1989, I was at Cardington to do the first instructors course and we were told that if successful for bikes, a similar scheme would be put in place for new car drivers shortly after.

In the first 24 months of CBT the accident rate for bikes dropped by over 70%, so when the Government were asked when they proposed to introduce a similar scheme for car drivers, it all went deathly quiet just like it did when regular re-testing for drivers was being considered.

Guaranteed vote loser, and we were openly told that was the reason both schemes were being or had been dropped.

[Rolebama]

With regard to accident rates dropping for motorcyclists, I know that in the 70s we had 10 motorcycle dealerships in my area. By 1989, that figure had dropped to 2 or 3 because of decline of sales. I believe this was down to insane price hikes on the machines. (Some mopeds had gone up from £149 in early 70s to £1,400 by mid-70s because of alloy wheels and pretty, very expensive trim.) The only 2-wheelers I see now are fast-food delivery riders, the guys who put parking FPNs on cars and those groups from the training centre a couple of miles away. I could probably count on one hand those I see otherwise in a month.
I live in the suburbs on the very edge of NW London, and I am aware of only one motorcyclist in the area. When I first moved here in the mid-70s, there were hundreds of us.
I have to wonder if the statistics for accident rates have been skewed for political purposes.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

When CBT was introduced in 1989, I was at Cardington to do the first instructors course and we were told that if successful for bikes, a similar scheme would be put in place for new car drivers shortly after.

In the first 24 months of CBT the accident rate for bikes dropped by over 70%, so when the Government were asked when they proposed to introduce a similar scheme for car drivers, it all went deathly quiet just like it did when regular re-testing for drivers was being considered.

Guaranteed vote loser, and we were openly told that was the reason both schemes were being or had been dropped.

That reminds me of a DVLA consultation about 15 years ago into the driving tuition and test system. We were told early on in the process that no form of restricted or conditional licensing would be considered. I don't recall any reason being given, but I suspect it was the same.

[Mark07]

@Rolebama anecdotally, I see fewer young people on pedal bikes than when i was growing up. I wonder if this could be linked to a decline in people subsequently buying motorbikes?

In fact, I suspect that I see as many adults riding pedal bikes as kids.

On a personal note, I've always been put off motorbikes because of the perceived danger. I have relatives who have bikes and they've been in accidents and picked up injuries - painful but nothing life changing.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Mark07

On a personal note, I've always been put off motorbikes because of the perceived danger. I have relatives who have bikes and they've been in accidents and picked up injuries - painful but nothing life changing.

It is a personal choice isn't it. I have been a professional rider for 45+ years and riding for 50 or so. I have been lucky enough to do and see things along with meet people I would never have had the opportunity had it not been for bikes, and for 25 years I had the best job in the Police service as a motorcyclist.

I was lucky in that my father was also a Police motorcyclist so I grew up with bikes (we were the first father and son motorcyclists to serve on the same traffic base at the same time) and when I was a kid whilst my mother was against me having a bike, my fathers attitude was that if I was stopped from riding, the chances are I would have ended up on the back of someone less skilled or trying to show off. The proviso was that I had to be properly trained and this is back in the day when we could still ride 250's on L plates)

Yes, I did have my bad accident as a result of being deliberately hit by a stolen vehicle which left me disabled, but I am still here to tell the tale and I continued riding for many years after until my heart attack and being required to take Warfarin put paid to that.

Bikes are not dangerous per se, it is poor driving standards that cause the majority of crashes, but I still miss the joy of riding across Europe, the thrill of racing (which I also did) and the companionship and friendship that biking provides, it is unique.

As a by the by, when I had my crash, I was left in a coma and I was told when I came around that I had damaged 50% of my brain cells. I reckon I have done pretty well on my one remaining cell 😉😁

[Rolebama]

@TC1474 I had pretty much the same motorcycle life as yourself and great fun it was. I did my racing at Oulton, Mallory and Donington Parks, and travelled all over N Wales doing Trials.
Agree entirely with your comment about other drivers, I lost count of the times I got the SMIDSY comment. Fortunately, I was only injured once and never actually came off. A bruised ankle and a battered ego because I should have seen it coming.
My first child ended it for me, as my wife pointed out that regardless of how much insurance payout she could not buy a replacement father for the kids.
After the kids left home I had a couple, but I really missed the companionship of other riders, soon gave up.