Driving must be raised to 18

[ExadiNigel]

1) If they are supervised, then I see absolutely no reason at all to setting a 7pm curfew. Many instructors work into the evenings, I have myself, so I would see that as an unnecessary restriction of business. Night time lessons are an important part of a good training course for learners.

2) When someone is allowed on Dual Carriageways I see no reason to preclude them from Motorways which are infinitely safer. I would rather learners (particularly if accompanied by an ADI) be allowed on motorways whilst learning.

Nigel

[ROG]

1) If they are supervised, then I see absolutely no reason at all to setting a 7pm curfew. Many instructors work into the evenings, I have myself, so I would see that as an unnecessary restriction of business. Night time lessons are an important part of a good training course for learners.

2) When someone is allowed on Dual Carriageways I see no reason to preclude them from Motorways which are infinitely safer. I would rather learners (particularly if accompanied by an ADI) be allowed on motorways whilst learning.

Nigel

I agree as the idea is to have them supervised for the areas they are not used to or trained for

Again I agree about the dual/motorway thing - who made up that rule and why?

What I would like is some sort of restriction on (the number of) mates in car for the first year if under 25

[gfoot]

Again I agree about the dual/motorway thing - who made up that rule and why?

I think the distinction is because motorways are not and never were rights of way - so it's easier in some sense to restrict their use, than it is for dual carriageways. Of course some DCs have the restriction too.

There's still the argument of whether learners should be barred from this kind of road, and why. I suspect we'd agree that they shouldn't be barred anyway?

What I would like is some sort of restriction on (the number of) mates in car for the first year if under 25

It's a nice stereotype - you forgot to limit it to male drivers though. And what if they're not your mates?

All I care about is that any restrictions are backed up by reliable statistics. So if 50% of KSIs involve cars with a newly-qualified driver under the age of 25 and at least two mates, and 20% are demonstrably the fault of that driver, then maybe what you're suggesting makes sense (i.e. would save a significant number of lives). Otherwise it's just discrimination.

For the record, I'm over 25 (and I don't have any mates) so I'm not being defensive here. I just hate seeing legislation introduced without reasonable justification. I'd rather see a breakdown of which accidents are being prevented, and why. I also don't really care if the only casualties were the occupants of the car.

I don't think it would be that difficult to police as through ANPR Police can already identify the registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance status so is it really that much to add engine size and license status of the registered owner... and I've heard the police have a six sense for when somethings fishy too =P

I don't see how the license status of the registered keeper is helpful - they're not necessarily the one driving the car. It must be almost impossible to effectively police uninsured or unlicensed drivers as things stand (hardly anyone ever gets stopped for a random check of their license and insurance status unless the vehicle is tainted or being driven in a provocative manner) and complicating the system will just make it harder to detect and enforce.

[heeloth]

Alternative:- drop the age and make sure people are good drivers.

Well good luck to that. I guess they are thinking that older people are better drivers, insurance companies seem to think so.

[GJD]

What I would like is some sort of restriction on (the number of) mates in car for the first year if under 25

I think the problem with that - along with an early evening curfew - is that it might nobble exactly the sort of thing new drivers want to use their car for.

[ROG]

What I would like is some sort of restriction on (the number of) mates in car for the first year if under 25

I think the problem with that - along with an early evening curfew - is that it might nobble exactly the sort of thing new drivers want to use their car for.

There has to be a trade off between safety and convenience - it's up to society/Govt to decide which they put first

[waremark]

What I would like is some sort of restriction on (the number of) mates in car for the first year if under 25

I think the problem with that - along with an early evening curfew - is that it might nobble exactly the sort of thing new drivers want to use their car for.

Most particularly what it would prevent would be the responsible nomination of a designated driver who will agree to have a non-alcoholic evening in order to be able to drive 'mates' home (and of course it prolongs the number of years for which parents in rural areas have to chauffeur their offspring every time they go out).

This particular discussion is mixing up two quite different proposals: should there be a further tougher test at a later stage after a significant amount of solo driving practice, and what if any restrictions should be imposed in the early months or years of driving. Personally, I consider that the 6 points in the first two years and you go back to first base rule has been quite significant in encouraging responsible behaviour by new drivers, and I would not be pleased to see the introduction of further restrictions.

[gfoot]

Personally, I consider that the 6 points in the first two years and you go back to first base rule has been quite significant in encouraging responsible behaviour by new drivers, and I would not be pleased to see the introduction of further restrictions.

I expect so, though I don't understand the logic of the 6-points-in-two-years restriction. I don't want to debate whether it's too strict - that's another question - but I don't really get why new drivers should be measured against a different yardstick to everybody else. What is it about new drivers that means they should only be allowed two speeding fines rather than four, for example? Perhaps it implies that experience entitles you to break the speed limits, but that's a dubious message to send.

I'd agree that some further assessment (e.g. an observed drive between 3 and 6 months) would be a good way to check their progress, but I think that should apply to all new drivers, not just those who earn penalty points.

Maybe experienced drivers should also have a 6-point limit rather than 12, and everybody should have to resit the L-test if they go over the limit. (Currently I think you just get a ban after 12 points, without having to sit a test - is that right?)

[zadocbrown]

Believe it or not, there are some 17-21 year olds who drive responsibly and don't crash. Why should they be punished just because they happen to be of a certain age? If it's ok to do that we could ban all men from driving on the same rationale. Or perhaps ban women from parking and men from any other driving? The statistics would support that on the same basis.

Anyone who is over 18 is legally an adult, and if they are to be deprived of privilages enjoyed by other adults it should be on an individual basis not an indiscriminate one. The licensing system is fundamentally based on meritoctratic principles - you have to meet a certain standard to get one, and it can be taken away by the courts if you are found to have fallen too far below that standard. That is as it should be.

If we think there are people out there who shouldn't be, then clearly our testing regime or enforcement needs to be improved. That is not an excuse for lazy, protest group pleasuring, discriminatory legislation; and the 'greater good' argument won't wash with those of us who are not fully signed up members of Ingsoc.

[ExadiNigel]

Believe it or not, there are some 17-21 year olds who drive responsibly and don't crash. Why should they be punished just because they happen to be of a certain age?....

They're not punished because they're a certain age. The 6 points in 2 years applies to everyone who passes their test regardless of age! If a 45 year old passes their test they will also have to start the testing process from scratch if they hit 6+points within the first 2 years of passing.

This, hopefully, makes the inexperienced drivers think twice before trangressing the law.

Nigel

[zadocbrown]

Believe it or not, there are some 17-21 year olds who drive responsibly and don't crash. Why should they be punished just because they happen to be of a certain age?....

They're not punished because they're a certain age. The 6 points in 2 years applies to everyone who passes their test regardless of age! If a 45 year old passes their test they will also have to start the testing process from scratch if they hit 6+points within the first 2 years of passing.

This, hopefully, makes the inexperienced drivers think twice before trangressing the law.

Nigel

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about ideas for other restrictions that have been raised.

[Gareth]

there are some 17-21 year olds who drive responsibly and don't crash. Why should they be punished [...]?

I'm very surprised you would show such wooly thinking; if they drive responsibly they'll not be 'punished'.

[waremark]

there are some 17-21 year olds who drive responsibly and don't crash. Why should they be punished [...]?

I'm very surprised you would show such wooly thinking; if they drive responsibly they'll not be 'punished'.

Not under the current system. ZB is responding to the suggestion that restrictions should be imposed on newly qualified drivers such as curfews, limits on the number of passengers they can carry, etc. This would apply however responsibly the newly qualified drive.

BTW, my three all passed their test at 17 and none of them has crashed yet (cross fingers). Strange that parenting responsibilities so rarely get discussed in connection with the attitudes of young drivers.

[waremark]

2) When someone is allowed on Dual Carriageways I see no reason to preclude them from Motorways which are infinitely safer. I would rather learners (particularly if accompanied by an ADI) be allowed on motorways whilst learning.

I think the reason for not allowing learners on motorways is to protect other motorway traffic from hesitant driving by learners, rather than to protect learners from motorway traffic.

I agree in principle that learners can be taught on dual carriageways what they need to know to negotiate motorways safely. In spite of that, I accompanied each of my three for their first drives on busy motorways. I don't think that new drivers necessarily drive worse than other drivers on motorways, but the great majority of drivers drive badly on motorways, having no notion of keeping a balloon of safety all around them, beside them as well as in front and behind. If we allowed ADI's to take learners on motorways (before as well as after they passed the DSA test) do you think they would be taught that overtaking is still overtaking, even if it takes place on a multi-lane road?

[waremark]

Personally, I consider that the 6 points in the first two years and you go back to first base rule has been quite significant in encouraging responsible behaviour by new drivers, and I would not be pleased to see the introduction of further restrictions.

I expect so, though I don't understand the logic of the 6-points-in-two-years restriction. I don't want to debate whether it's too strict - that's another question - but I don't really get why new drivers should be measured against a different yardstick to everybody else. What is it about new drivers that means they should only be allowed two speeding fines rather than four, for example? Perhaps it implies that experience entitles you to break the speed limits, but that's a dubious message to send.

There are two reasons for imposing a lower 'yardstick' on new drivers. The first is to discourage deliberate speeding by young drivers who are still foolish and full of testosterone - which may be more age than experience related. The second is that new drivers have less experience on the basis of which to judge safe speeds, so it is more important for them to take note of recommended maximum speeds (the vast majority of 'speeding' by mature adult drivers is perfectly safe).