NEW car test and Speed limits

[ROG]

Why bother reducing the engine size for new passes - a 1000cc can be just as dangerous as a 3000cc in the wrong hands.

[MGF]

By someone being willing to pay for it? The control is more obvious when it is the young driver that has to pay for the insurance, (assuming it is a typical young driver that has the typical lack of wealth).

So the insurance system doesn't effectively control what cars young people drive. Parents do. I remember a 19 year old being quoted £3000 to insure an Escort RS Turbo nearly twenty years ago. Father insured it with him as a named driver.

That's a rather absolutist point of view, effectively ignoring how the situation is for most young drivers. Are you really saying that because a small minority have direct or indirect access to sufficient wealth then the general point is of no value?

Obviously I am not saying that. As per my post and Jont's that followed it is clear that it is easy to get round having to pay very high insurance premiums. Not by getting someone else to pay for the insurance but merely by not being the policyholder. You must be aware that if a young person's car is insured in their parent's name and they are added as a named driver the cost will be considerably less than if the young person is the policyholder.

Why bother reducing the engine size for new passes - a 1000cc can be just as dangerous as a 3000cc in the wrong hands.

The insurance companies disagree with you however I do agree it isn't the main problem with young drivers. Probably the most effective restriction would not be to allow young people to carry passengers below a certain age. Although this would be a significant constraint on their freedom.

[Gareth]

You must be aware that if a young person's car is insured in their parent's name and they are added as a named driver the cost will be considerably less than if the young person is the policyholder.

If the young person is declared to be the main driver, the cost is no less and probably more if a parent is also covered. If the young person is actually the main driver but it is not declared then that's fraud, and the insurance companies are particularly hot on that these days. Finally, if the young person is (really) not the main driver but the parent in whose name the car is insured has access to another car, then many insurance companies will either refuse to insure or else will require the young person to be identified as the main driver, which gets you back to the first point.

[TripleS]

ESP: a system for reducing your risk of a shunt, but ensuring that those you do have will be nastier than they might otherwise have been.

Explain?

Some drivers will expect too much of the system, so whereas it will help them to some extent and save them from some medium speed shunts, they might push things too much and then find the capabilities of the system are not unlimited, so they'll go off at 80 mph rather than 60 mph, etc.

I dunno, that might be all rubbish, but as far as I'm concerned these systems hacve no appeal. To me all it means is more cost to buy the cars in the first place, more complexity, more stuff to go wrong, more expense in maintenance and repairs when it does go wrong, and for what? A bit more cornering speed? Even then the credit goes to the designers and manufacturers of theses sophisticated systems - not the driver.

[Ned Ludd mode]
I coped OK for 45 years before I had even heard of ABS, traction control and this ESP stuff, so why should I be interested in it now?
[/Ned Ludd mode]

We made perfectly satisfactory progress four decades ago without all this crap; I just don't see that there is any meaningful benefit to be had from it. At any rate I wouldn't buy it. HTH.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

....I think low powered cars are in many ways more difficult to drive than more powerful ones.

Yeah, tell me about it! I suffer this kind of grief on a daily basis.

Getting three figures on the clock is a real struggle, but I try.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

You must be aware that if a young person's car is insured in their parent's name and they are added as a named driver the cost will be considerably less than if the young person is the policyholder.

If the young person is declared to be the main driver, the cost is no less and probably more if a parent is also covered. If the young person is actually the main driver but it is not declared then that's fraud, and the insurance companies are particularly hot on that these days.

It might be fraud but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Often. The fact remains that it is quite easy for a young person to drive a car without having to pay lots of money in insurance.

Going back to the original comment

The insurance system effectively controls what cars young people can drive.

No it doesn't. It may have a significant influence but that is not the same as 'effective control' negating the need for legislative intervention.

[daz6215]

Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411

[zadocbrown]

Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411

I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.

They are also discriminatory; and they reinforce the damaging view that young people are inherently bad drivers whereas older drivers magically become 'good' drivers, without making any constructive suggestions as to how people can achieve this transition more successfully.

Q: When are they going to grown up?
A: When we stop treating them as children.

[TripleS]

Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411

I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.

They are also discriminatory; and they reinforce the damaging view that young people are inherently bad drivers whereas older drivers magically become 'good' drivers, without making any constructive suggestions as to how people can achieve this transition more successfully.

Q: When are they going to grown up?
A: When we stop treating them as children.

I agree with you. The policy of restricting or penalising the majority in an attempt to prevent errors by a minority is well established, but still wrong.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411

I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.

What do you mean by 'politically expedient meddling'? What is the root of the issue and why should the root be addressed rather than other aspects of the issue?

They are also discriminatory; and they reinforce the damaging view that young people are inherently bad drivers whereas older drivers magically become 'good' drivers, without making any constructive suggestions as to how people can achieve this transition more successfully.

Older drivers don't 'magically become 'good drivers''. They gain experience which makes them safer. Younger drivers will become safer with experience. What do you think we could substitute experience with?

The article refers to 'novice' drivers not necessarily young drivers so I am not sure why restrictions would be discriminatory.

Do you think discrimination based on age and gender by insurane comanies should be made illegal as well? Or is discrimination by private companies acceptable and discrimination by parliament wrong?

[zadocbrown]

Im sure we'll see an introduction of this in the near future!
http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232411

I'm not sure we will, and I don't think we should. Such measures are just politicaly expedient meddling which will be of limited effectiveness, and which fail to address the root of the issue.

What do you mean by 'politically expedient meddling'? What is the root of the issue and why should the root be addressed rather than other aspects of the issue?

I mean that politicians,(spurred on by the media and the ignorant) love new initiatives which show a quick return of, say, 1%. Despite the fact that such statistics, in the scheme of things, only prove that little has changed. The root of the issue is that too many people either can't or won't drive to the standard necessary to avoid danger. We should address that because such an approach has more chance of significant results.

Older drivers don't 'magically become 'good drivers''. They gain experience which makes them safer. Younger drivers will become safer with experience. What do you think we could substitute experience with?

That's what I mean. Experience doesn't make people safer. It may change their driving for better, or for worse, depending on what they learn (or fail to learn) from it. It may also have no effect at all. There's as much evidence of people not learning from experience as learning from it; people tend to repeat their mistakes, eg if you have a certain type of accident you are likely to have more similar accidents. It's pointless to say "Oh well, you're a terrible driver now but you'll learn with 'experience'." What exactly are they supposed to be learning? What we need to do is find way of making experience more productive, rather than shutting our eyes and hoping for the best.

The article refers to 'novice' drivers not necessarily young drivers so I am not sure why restrictions would be discriminatory.

Do you think discrimination based on age and gender by insurane comanies should be made illegal as well? Or is discrimination by private companies acceptable and discrimination by parliament wrong?

Yes, I do think it should be illegal. I don't think it complies with the idea of natural justice.

Ok, you're right, this particular article doesn't refer specifically to young drivers. But, these kind of proposals often do. And in any case, even if the law was equitable it's hard to see how the enforcement would be.

[ROG]

Older drivers don't 'magically become 'good drivers''. They gain experience which makes them safer. Younger drivers will become safer with experience. What do you think we could substitute experience with?

I think Stephen Haley covered this point in MIND DRIVING.

I think he said something like - post L lest, the driver is left to their own devices and gets told to learn by experience but is not informed how to do that correctly -

What is the correct thing to learn from a particular experience

Example - new driver fails to stop in time & rear ends another - must get vehicle with better brakes !!!

[jbsportstech]

Yes and as far back 1966 when Tom Wisdom wrote high performance driving he discussed drivers and types of driver and his view of them..

He makes the statement that a slow driver who is not concetrating and thinks they safe because of their lack of speed can very dangerous.

I was talking to someone with reference to roadcraft 2007 working party and there was a lady who has doctorates coming out of her ears in physcology etc and she was asked to write a chapter on physcology of driving. She spent months and put her work in front of the working party. It was so far off the mark it was thrown out, so I am told.

Its this type of person who comes up with these rediculous ideas! lower speedlimits do not make up for poor concentration and observation in my mind.

I know someone who has attended these roadsafety commity meetings where people decided how the masses should drive. The key thing that stuck in this persons mind was watching them drive out of the carpark. It was clear to them these people didn't have the first idea about advanced driving and had higher than normal risk profiles to use their termanology. Effectively they are legislating against their own poor driving habits and behavour

[vonhosen]

Yes and as far back 1966 when Tom Wisdom wrote high performance driving he discussed drivers and types of driver and his view of them..

He makes the statement that a slow driver who is not concetrating and thinks they safe because of their lack of speed can very dangerous.

I was talking to someone with reference to roadcraft 2007 working party and there was a lady who has doctorates coming out of her ears in physcology etc and she was asked to write a chapter on physcology of driving. She spent months and put her work in front of the working party. It was so far off the mark it was thrown out, so I am told.

Its this type of person who comes up with these rediculous ideas! lower speedlimits do not make up for poor concentration and observation in my mind.

I know someone who has attended these roadsafety commity meetings where people decided how the masses should drive. The key thing that stuck in this persons mind was watching them drive out of the carpark. It was clear to them these people didn't have the first idea about advanced driving and had higher than normal risk profiles to use their termanology. Effectively they are legislating against their own poor driving habits and behavour

Dr Lisa Dorn was credited (in the 2007 edition) for her adaption of Chapter 1.

[jbsportstech]

Dr Lisa Dorn was credited (in the 2007 edition) for her adaption of Chapter 1.

Yes she was she was credited. However I am told that none of her work was actually included.