New drivers should train for a year?

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

The British association of insurers have proposed a set of regulations that they believe all new drivers should be subject to before, during and after you take your test.

A ban on learners being able to take an intensive driving course as their only method of passing

The introduction of a new "graduated" licence for the first six months after passing a test

During this time the number of young passengers that a newly-qualified driver could carry would be restricted

They would also be banned from driving between 11:00pm and 4:00am for the first six months, unless they were driving to and from work or college

There would be no blood alcohol allowed during those first six months

But young drivers would be able to start learning earlier, at the age of 16 and a half

To me this all sounds perfectly reasonable seeing as the most dangerous drivers on our roads are the 17-24 group.
Thoughts?

 

[smeariestbat]

yes, new drivers need better training, not just pricing them out so theres fewer of them.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Difficult to argue against what they are suggesting. Hopefully it would lower the cost of insurance across the board.

 

[hoveboyslim]

Completely impossible to police; do they expect road blocks to be set up to check the drivers aren't out after 11pm? If a single woman was caught in heavy traffic and it got to 11pm (and it wasn't a work or college journey) would she be expected to walk home the rest of the way?

It would just give the insurance company more excuses not to pay out.

Complete and utter rubbish.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

Old drivers are just as dangerous as the young ones. They go the same speed limit on EVERY f***ing ROAD!!!, can't pull out of junctions because they're so slow and don't indicate because their fingers are old and obviously don't work anymore.

But yea I agree that those new rules for young drivers are quiet reasonable actually!

Old drivers should have to take some form of test when they reach 60-65!

 

[Nadger]

Good idea but my beef with is with most people are unable to use their indicators properly or the correct lane on roundabouts should be a 3 strikes and a retest

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

Sounds like what Australia have had in for quite a while. In Western Australia you have to clock 25(soon to be 100) hours of driving with a fully licensed driver before you can take your final test. Normally takes just under 2 years to have full license.

 

[drew]

Completely impossible to police; do they expect road blocks to be set up to check the drivers aren't out after 11pm? If a single woman was caught in heavy traffic and it got to 11pm (and it wasn't a work or college journey) would she be expected to walk home the rest of the way?

It would just give the insurance company more excuses not to pay out.

Complete and utter rubbish.

Insurers are already fitting 'black boxes' to cars to monitor driving so it's not impossible. You can't be 100% certain without checking every single car, the same that the Police don't stop everyone to check they have a licence because it is too impracticable. As for not paying out, if you sign an insurance contract that says you mustn't drive between the hours of 11pm and 4am and get the benefit of a lower premium for doing so and then you have an accident during that time and are giving mates a lift back from a night out, why should the insurers pay out? As it stands at the moment, they would pay out any third party claim but could then seek to recover the payments from the driver. With regard to the woman, the police would obviously let her drive home, just as they would if you are caught speeding which is actually against the law, but they could have a mechanism for notifying insurers, possible through the MID. It would be up to the driver to appeal and provide evidence as to why she was driving at the wrong time.

With regard to the proposals, I, as a driving instructor, don't believe that making people have a year of learning would make much of a difference. I have taught young male drivers who are fantastic drivers and have remained so since they passed. Some people need a year and some can do it in a few months (although I am against intensive courses). However, if we are going to penalise young drivers then perhaps we should also be looking at all ages for periodic testing. If people always drove to the standard required at test level then there would be fewer accidents, primarily because you are taught about correct timing for signals and proper observations and of course appropriate speeds. However, go for a drive and you will see much older drivers ignoring all these safety rules.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Motorcyclists under 21 are restricted to 33BHP for the first two years. What about a ban on a cars power for the same time limit for young drivers?

 

[ees complicated no?]

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.

 

[Titus]

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.

Compare the accident rates between the young and the old. Then call it bullshit.

 

[Titus]

Rather than lowering the start age, I think they should raise it to 18.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Compare the accident rates between the young and the old. Then call it bullshit.

Precisely. Insurers don't just make these prices up you know, they're calculated according to complex risk models.

 

[sten_super]

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.

Unfortunately your anecdotal evidence is not backed up by the statistics. According to the Association of British Insurers (and shamelessly quoted from the BBC News article);

- one-third of all drivers killed in car accidents are aged 17-24 (and they make up one-eighth of all drivers)
- an 18 year-old is three times more likely to be involved in an accident than a 48 year-old
- one-quarter of all personal injury claims for more than £500k are due to crashes involving 17-24 year-olds

There is certainly a sizeable proportion of poor drivers amongst the 'old timers', but that doesn't (necessarily) make them dangerous. There are clearly a sizeable proportion of young drivers that are dangerous. I accept that a large number of younger drivers don't drive dangerously, and this will of course have a major impact on them, but if (and I hope it is) the aim is to reduce accident rates amongst young people and (wild optimism here) reduce insurance premiums then I'm in favour.

 

[Colossal Squid]

Good idea but my beef with is with most people are unable to use their indicators properly or the correct lane on roundabouts should be a 3 strikes and a retest

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."

 

[GreersElbow]

I think it's a great idea, provided insurers drop prices....

 

[strings]

I'm indifferent. The proposals are good and sensible, but difficult to Police and potentially expensive for young people (a year of lessons, ouch!).

There is plenty of unpoliced illegal driving going on (mobile phones, for example). I'm sure the Police don't want to be responsible for even more (I await a Police Office to correct me).

 

[Titus]

There are two kinds of drivers, the idiots who drive slower than me, and the maniacs who drive faster.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

yes, new drivers need better training, not just pricing them out so theres fewer of them.

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

 

[ees complicated no?]

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