New drivers should train for a year?

[Guinness Boy]

The Problem other problem is with pricing young driver out is everyone insurance is too expensive when accidents happen, when I was 17 I had an Astra GTE and drover like a 17 year old my logic was "I pay so much for Insurance it doesnt matter if I have a prang" where as if my insurance was really cheap to start and I was told It would triple if I had a prang then I am sure I would have taken things more carefully but as I was paying top whack to start I cared less, maybe this would be an idea start cheap but if something happens your fault triple or qaudruple the cost

Don't think you've quite grasped the pricing model here. It starts expensive because as a young, inexperienced driver you are more likely to have an accident and therefore claim from the insurance company. Insurance companies have to make a profit like any other company does in a free market. It therefore follows they have to price the premiums higher to cover the claims.

This is exactly why there is a no claims discount. What you should be thinking is 'if I drive carefully for a year this price is really going to come down'. Not 'it's so expensive I don't care'. That is only going to make it more expensive for you and everyone else.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Don't think you've quite grasped the pricing model here. It starts expensive because as a young, inexperienced driver you are more likely to have an accident and therefore claim from the insurance company. Insurance companies have to make a profit like any other company does in a free market. It therefore follows they have to price the premiums higher to cover the claims.

This is exactly why there is a no claims discount. What you should be thinking is 'if I drive carefully for a year this price is really going to come down'. Not 'it's so expensive I don't care'. That is only going to make it more expensive for you and everyone else.

Fair enough was just talking from my own experience, it was far too high when I was young and it made me care less at 17 you dont think it will be cheaper when Im 25 if I dont crash,where if someone said dont crash or it will go through the roof I would have taken more care,personal opinion from me

 

[smeariestbat]

Fair enough was just talking from my own experience, it was far too high when I was young and it made me care less at 17 you dont think it will be cheaper when Im 25 if I dont crash,where if someone said dont crash or it will go through the roof I would have taken more care,personal opinion from me

if you do crash, even with a very high starting premium, it can still go higher, there isnt a cap on insurance premiums. that work for you

 

[Surrey_Albion]

if you do crash, even with a very high starting premium, it can still go higher, there isnt a cap on insurance premiums. that work for you

This is a forum, I might not have been right but no need to be a sarcastic prick is there

 

[smeariestbat]

This is a forum, I might not have been right but no need to be a sarcastic prick is there

 

[The Large One]

Now you're talking. Inconsiderate twats who fail to use their indicators should be punished. I'd love to own a shitty old banger I could just plough into offenders with. "Oh sorry, have I smashed your BMW? Probably because I assumed you were continuing along the road ahead rather than TURNING as would have been indicated by use of your INDICATORS."

Exactly - "I'll just GUESS you're turning, shall I...?"

But that's NOTHING compared with drivers who hog the middle lane on motorways.

 

[sten_super]

It would cost around 2.4K a year for a young driver to have a 2 hour lesson every week for a year.

This is the one part of the measures that I'm not clear on - are they really suggesting that young drivers should learn continually for a whole year? How do they measure that? Are they going to insist upon a certain number of hours of lessons (which would stuff the intensive courses, which I think is the idea), or simply use a time measure (can't take a test for 12 months after the first lesson) in which case it seems rather pointless - presumably learners will have a first lesson as early as possible and then wait 6 months for regular lessons. As you point out expecting people to continually have regular lessons for 12 months will be too expensive for many.

 

[drew]

It would cost around 2.4K a year for a young driver to have a 2 hour lesson every week for a year.

Is anyone saying you need to have two hours a week?

 

[ees complicated no?]

Is anyone saying you need to have two hours a week?

1 hour lessons are to short.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Sorry but this is bullshit, Im a young driver but a good one & I see far more old timers who can't drive than youngsters, they dont seem to know the speed limits of any roads or how to pull out of a road, they clearly cant see either as they cut you up more than a crap razor.

It's funny, because in my experience, the people who THINK they're good drivers, frequently aren't

I've always felt it would be a useful exercise to ban young drivers from carrying passengers, as many of the young males you see hooning around like idiots are doing it because their mates are in the car. Peer pressure is a huge thing.

 

[studio150]

Would this actually lead to an increase in accidents where the vehicle fails to stop, on the basis that the driver is a youngster who is within the curfew period, and rather than loose their licence decides not to stop.

Also how do you police the number of passengers in the car. Rather than a minimum 12 month learning period, would it not be better to have a mandatory minimum number of hours with a qualified driving instructor. Agree with the comments on banning intensive courses, but the lowering of the provisional licence to 16.5 is effectively not that with a 12 month learning period, as it really just increases the minimum age to 17.5.

Older drivers present a different issue, in that they do not tend to have the same high speed accidents on country roads that youngsters do, and are more involved in paring and other mis judgements on distance, as well as the hitting the accelator rather than brake that seems ot occur on a regular basis.

The main problem with older drivers is that most carrying on driver when they are no longer fit to do so, as they refuse to accept the advice from friends and family, that maybe it is time to stop. A medical review at say 70, rather than self certification would be a better option.

 

[smeariestbat]

At my mum's home, there is an old twat next door who loves his own parking space right outside. I've always said that if I became rich I would buy an old car, tax it, MOT it and park it in that space for the rest of my life.

Your idea is even better.

yes, how dare an old man park outside his house to make it easier for him. This comment is in line with your usual ludicrous comments, such as finding the disappearence and possible murder of a five year old child 'fascinating'. you are a strange and morbid individual, who is now on my ignore list.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Would this actually lead to an increase in accidents where the vehicle fails to stop, on the basis that the driver is a youngster who is within the curfew period, and rather than loose their licence decides not to stop.

Also how do you police the number of passengers in the car. Rather than a minimum 12 month learning period, would it not be better to have a mandatory minimum number of hours with a qualified driving instructor. Agree with the comments on banning intensive courses, but the lowering of the provisional licence to 16.5 is effectively not that with a 12 month learning period, as it really just increases the minimum age to 17.5.

Older drivers present a different issue, in that they do not tend to have the same high speed accidents on country roads that youngsters do, and are more involved in paring and other mis judgements on distance, as well as the hitting the accelator rather than brake that seems ot occur on a regular basis.

Insurance claims by elderly drivers tend to be more minor stuff, whereas claims by the 16-24 age group, particularly males, are vastly more common, are frequently high value, and also are significantly more likely to involve serious injury or death.

 

[Loadicus Trux]

It's funny, because in my experience, the people who THINK they're good drivers, frequently aren't

I've always felt it would be a useful exercise to ban young drivers from carrying passengers, as many of the young males you see hooning around like idiots are doing it because their mates are in the car. Peer pressure is a huge thing.

Totally agree. God knows how many accidents have occured because of the power of peer pressure.
Not bothering to indicate is quite simply the easiest way of letting everyone else know what a w****r you are. One little movement of the finger, the car even turns it off for goodness sake!!

 

[beorhthelm]

the problem with all these seemingly sensible suggestions like night curfew on driving, limits on passengers or restricting power of a car are all nice but anti liberty and dont solve the basic problem of being a young wreakless driver. cant take drive when they want, drive sibling to school, or their family, or drive parents 2.0l diesel etc how silly is that? you might like to think how it will play out, whats next? restrictions on number of children in a car? women of below 5'6" only allowed to drive smaller cars and be fitted with special boaster seats? have to be 30 with 10 year experience to own a car over 150BHP?

having some number of logged hours driven might be the only sensible suggestion, but open to fraud (parents signing off more hours than really driven. limits on payouts from insurance, particularly personal injury, might be a good idea too and not just for young drivers.

 

[drew]

1 hour lessons are to short.

Then have one two hour lesson every other week! Besides, hour lessons are fine unless you live in the back of beyond and spend a long time driving to an urban area to practise.

 

[Zamora For England]

It's a thorny subject.

When I was 17, I passed with a relatively few amount of hours (25 or something) after only a couple of months, I'd never driven a car before (first time, one minor). I'm 22 now and I've never even gone near to having a prang *touch wood* and I admit I have the occasional 'country lane drive like Colin McRae' mad five minutes.

I think you have to have the right sort of BRAIN to be able to take to driving well. I like to think I have logical brain, kinetic almost. I ride motorbikes, I've driven vans for work and I can see accidents coming. To sound arrogant, I think I am AMAZING at driving. But it's arrogant toss-pieces like me that insurance companies anticipate.

On the other side of the coin, I think I'm a safer driver than my old dear, 51. She drives 40mph everywhere, regardless if she is in a 20mph zone, 30mph zone or on a dual carriageway. I spend a lot of hours on the road and find these kinds of people to be MUCH more dangerous than drivers with P plates or even learners.

Driving is a confidence thing. It might be unfair to force younger versions of my arrogant self to do 100+ hours but it gives nervous BINTS etc time to get better and not cause so many ACCIDENTS cos they're too STOOPID and can't react when something goes wrong on their own.

 

[timbha]

New drivers should train for a year

what's the point in passing your driving test if you have to get the train?