I take your point on tarnishing all youngsters with the same brush Finnistere and I agree it's not fair but I do think 50mph for a newly passed driver is fast enough until they get some experience. Yes the insurance companies take a calculated risk and more cost might possibly make a few not take insurance but most cops now have ANPR and youngsters can still get insurance on their parents policy under guidelines as Angie said, i'm probably a bit biased as the 2 girls that hit me we're in mum's Audi A3 shooting a junction at 90mph, they came as close as I ever want to come to splattering me all over the countryside as well as themselves, and losing my little lad his dad. The passenger has life changing injuries and it's all from excess speed and no experience. Insurance for young people is mega bucks for a reason.
Brecons Accident
- Thread starter Spikey
- Start date
I get what you saying as well Finisterre, but lets be honest life isn’t fair in lots of ways is it, its always the many that suffer because of the few, I do think that putting some restrictions on new drivers (what ever their age) for six or twelve months from taking their test to allow them to gain really valuable and necessary experience is a sensible step, and its not about making life difficult for young people, the point is a car in inexperienced hands is dangerous, just the same as I think from 65 or 70 there should be some sort of competence check on a persons ability to drive, not necessarily a test
We need to expand the available training. The existing test, fine, that works. Once on the road I learnt more by scaring myself. Maybe insurance companies could sell courses designed to reduce accidents. Only insure people that have passed their proprietary testing after a track and demolition derby day.
Just excluding young adults from driving because some of them are foolish is not a great solution. Imo
Just excluding young adults from driving because some of them are foolish is not a great solution. Imo
I think they could do it in such a way where you are not exluding them from driving but just restricting their choices of what vehicles they can drive, just like a bike licence. Of course a test which involves driving a more powerful vehicle could be introduced if they wanted something with more power from the start, just like the bike licence.
Most people probably pass their test in a 1.4 corsa or the equivelant with no real power and someone controlling the speed they drive and can then drive anything they like as long as they can get insurance or put on mummy and daddys insurance.
Its ridiculous. Times need to change, your not talking about a mk1 escort thats classed as a fast car anymore.
Most people probably pass their test in a 1.4 corsa or the equivelant with no real power and someone controlling the speed they drive and can then drive anything they like as long as they can get insurance or put on mummy and daddys insurance.
Its ridiculous. Times need to change, your not talking about a mk1 escort thats classed as a fast car anymore.
Nelly Welly
Active member
What is the opinion of a synthetic driving unit to allow learners to take part in all sorts of emergency action situations before they experience it and have to react in a real life threatening event?
completely agree with you flintster restriction and nannying people is not the way to go. nelly is on the right track. instead of crap stuff on the test like reverse parking only behind 1 car in a gap that is 5 cars long and reversing into car park spaces or around a corner is ok but ultimately pointless. why cant this sort of crap be done in a way like a CBT? pass that mundane manouvers and basic car control off the road in a controlled environment. get drivers on skid pans and the like where situations can be simulated. then allow them out.
what cars would you say limit dirvers to? a 1.1 or 1.4 ..... most your people have these and the cars are capable of 80+ anyway. what if the driver doesnt have access to a small engine car. oh tough luck your parents cant afford the latest small engined car?
kids get slagged off enough like this, its just ill thought out righteous people who forget what it was like the first time they could get out and away. i used to play racing in a fiat 126 ... 800cc of pure power against my mate in his mini which wasnt much better. ok we couldnt get above 60 really but if we had crashed the result would be the same. we didnt do it in the middle of the night and mostly we were on our own so all the rules would be pointless.
what cars would you say limit dirvers to? a 1.1 or 1.4 ..... most your people have these and the cars are capable of 80+ anyway. what if the driver doesnt have access to a small engine car. oh tough luck your parents cant afford the latest small engined car?
kids get slagged off enough like this, its just ill thought out righteous people who forget what it was like the first time they could get out and away. i used to play racing in a fiat 126 ... 800cc of pure power against my mate in his mini which wasnt much better. ok we couldnt get above 60 really but if we had crashed the result would be the same. we didnt do it in the middle of the night and mostly we were on our own so all the rules would be pointless.
It is all double standards though, its fine to put all these restrictions on bikes but not on cars as it might cost too much.
Thats a bit of a cop out. Parents dont need to buy new cars, whats wrong with what most people do and get a £500 car as their first?
And who says the parents need to buy it in the first place?
As you say modern small cars are capable of 80+mph, is this not enough for an inexperienced driver to start in?
A couple of years in a small car isnt going to hurt the average 17/18/19 year old who will be over the moon the fact they have a car in the first place.
Unfortunately I see this every year with the older high school kids whos parents have bought them a car and they bring it into school.
There have been quite a few cars written off in the last 3 years and half of the rest turn up with mirrors hanging off when they were fine the day before.
There is a reason kids get slagged off, and its cause a high percentage of them are idiots that deserve it and spoil it for the others.
Thats a bit of a cop out. Parents dont need to buy new cars, whats wrong with what most people do and get a £500 car as their first?
And who says the parents need to buy it in the first place?
As you say modern small cars are capable of 80+mph, is this not enough for an inexperienced driver to start in?
A couple of years in a small car isnt going to hurt the average 17/18/19 year old who will be over the moon the fact they have a car in the first place.
Unfortunately I see this every year with the older high school kids whos parents have bought them a car and they bring it into school.
There have been quite a few cars written off in the last 3 years and half of the rest turn up with mirrors hanging off when they were fine the day before.
There is a reason kids get slagged off, and its cause a high percentage of them are idiots that deserve it and spoil it for the others.
I think peer pressure is a factor when they have more than one friend in the car , and driving at night after being at the pub they may not have had a drink but their mates would have and maybe egg them on and they get into trouble yes maybe a bit of showing off and a legacy of gaming where you drive a car game on a computer or console , crash it and no consequence , they might be s**t hot on the game and that makes them over confident. I do wonder in this particular crash were they wearing seat belts. I am all for a graduated licence too just like motorbikes.
Insurance for youngsters is mega bucks for a reason and we all know why. Completely agree the current test is probably totally outdated and needs a complete overhaul. No-ones saying exclude kids driving, a box to limit them to 50, which is pretty much the national speed limit now In most places anyway, until they get some experience will cut down the number of fatal and non fatal accidents caused by inexperience and speed, and can be fitted to any car so no need to buy a small engine one. They're not being inconvenienced, just slowed down. A fatal accident is why we're having this discussion. How wanting to protect our kids from themselves is being righteous is a bit of a mystery. Have a year hooning round a track/skidpan fine, good idea, the road isn't the place to learn by scaring yourself imo, too many other innocent people end up getting hurt, killed. I clearly remember being stupid when inexperienced, I was lucky, I never hurt anybody else or myself thankfully, but I came bloody close a few times.
I'm not righteous in any way, I just don't want youngsters and other innocent people getting hurt if at all possible and seeing the suffering it causes. I bet the 18yr old girl who hit me wishes she was still at uni carrying on with doing her degree instead of being housebound now with a wrecked for life pelvis, and not costing her mum tens of thousands of pounds and the worry the poor woman now has.
Anyway just my two penneth.
I'm not righteous in any way, I just don't want youngsters and other innocent people getting hurt if at all possible and seeing the suffering it causes. I bet the 18yr old girl who hit me wishes she was still at uni carrying on with doing her degree instead of being housebound now with a wrecked for life pelvis, and not costing her mum tens of thousands of pounds and the worry the poor woman now has.
Anyway just my two penneth.