Learner drives waiting longer to drive

[timbo343]

I heard on the radio that plans for learner drivers to wait a year before taking their test and not allowed to drive in the dark until they have been driving a while unless someone over 30 is sat with them.

 

My thoughts on this is... its a money making scam and surely what happens when it gets dark at 4pm in winter?

[broc]

the proposal for a curfew was between 22:00pm and 5:00am

[pcstru]

BBC Article.

 

I think it is some proposal by the Transport Research Laboratory. Young drivers account for 5% of the mileage but are involved in >20% of accidents involving fatalities. That suggests *something* is wrong. I doubt the government will act on the recommendations.

Edited October 11, 2013 by pcstru

[mats]

The car industry / motor lobby will get the Tories to kill this for sure. Even though it's quite reasonable.

[localzuk]

The bit I want to know is the '120 hours supervised driving' bit they suggested. Supervised by who? By parents/other qualified drivers? If so, how is this enforced? Or is it 120 hours with a driving instructor? If so, that's an extra £2400 roughly!

 

I work full time and I wouldn't be able to afford that!

 

No, the ideas here are ridiculous. Better teaching. Better dealing with the idiot driving etc... Crack down on the wheel spinning, the engine revving, car-modding crowd.

[samba_man]

I can see couple of faults with the curfew. What happens if you get caught up in traffic or are running late?!

Surely if young drivers are not allowed to practice night driving, how are they going to be any good when they are allowed? Surely it's better to practice night and day driving from the start so that the different techniques and things to watch out for are implanted.

[Chris_in_notts]

No, the ideas here are ridiculous. Better teaching. Better dealing with the idiot driving etc... Crack down on the wheel spinning, the engine revving, car-modding crowd.

 

I agree the ideas are ridiculous but it seems unfair to assume all the engine revving car modders are to blame lol

[bondbill2k2]

Make a speed awareness cause similar to those provided as the get out option for speeding as part of the test or once passed to try and improve/promote safe driving?

[Fleetwood]

What about people under X age to be insured on only small-engined cars? (Regardless if they live out of Mummy & Daddy's bank account.) - I appreciate you can 'modify' vehicles but there's only so much you'll get out of a small engine. And sure, you could also say "that's fine, but they can easily get an engine swap" - then make it illegal [if they're in the age-restriction, plus they would have to declare the modification to the insurer anyway else it'd be void] or at least have some enforcement put into doing that. You won't prevent -every- young driver no matter what you put in place, but I'm sure the deterents (small-engine vehicles only) will cut the numbers.

 

I'm only 20 myself though, so I'm sure I "don't know what I'm talking about." haha

 

I find part of the issue is that Joe Bloggs has spent up to a year, or more, learning in a 1.0 Hyundai Getz, then is rewarded for passing with a 1.6 Citroen Saxo VRS or something of similar nature. On the other hand though, speaking partly on behalf of myself and other young drivers, it's not always us that cause the accidents.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Fleetwood

[pcstru]

The bit I want to know is the '120 hours supervised driving' bit they suggested. Supervised by who? By parents/other qualified drivers? If so, how is this enforced? Or is it 120 hours with a driving instructor? If so, that's an extra £2400 roughly!

 

I work full time and I wouldn't be able to afford that!

 

I would have thought as a new young driver, that would be the cost of a car + insurance.

[Fleetwood]

I would have thought as a new young driver, that would be the cost of a car + insurance.

 

Depends on a lot of circumstances I guess, but in 2011 my first ever insurance premium was £1738 for a 1996 1.3 Nissan Micra - I doubt it's any cheaper for 17 year olds now.

[Sunnyknight]

What about people under X age to be insured on only small-engined cars? (Regardless if they live out of Mummy & Daddy's bank account.) - I appreciate you can 'modify' vehicles but there's only so much you'll get out of a small engine.

 

You can get 700bhp out of a 1.3 mazda rx7 / 8 rotary engine.

[Chris_in_notts]

What about people under X age to be insured on only small-engined cars? (Regardless if they live out of Mummy & Daddy's bank account.) - I appreciate you can 'modify' vehicles but there's only so much you'll get out of a small engine. And sure, you could also say "that's fine, but they can easily get an engine swap" - then make it illegal [if they're in the age-restriction, plus they would have to declare the modification to the insurer anyway else it'd be void] or at least have some enforcement put into doing that. You won't prevent -every- young driver no matter what you put in place, but I'm sure the deterents (small-engine vehicles only) will cut the numbers.

 

I'm only 20 myself though, so I'm sure I "don't know what I'm talking about." haha

 

 

 

I find part of the issue is that Joe Bloggs has spent up to a year, or more, learning in a 1.0 Hyundai Getz, then is rewarded for passing with a 1.6 Citroen Saxo VRS or something of similar nature. On the other hand though, speaking partly on behalf of myself and other young drivers, it's not always us that cause the accidents.

 

people will crash though no matter what they drive my first car was a Fiat punto 1.4 GT turbo running 205hp at the wheels they I sold that and bought a chevy monte carlo 5 litre V8 when I was 19 never crashed either of them ive been driving modded cars ever since and killed no one yet.

[Mayki5]

As a current learner but somebody outside the 17-24 age bracket, it looks like I would be quite affected by some of these changes, though others can potentially work.

 

I agree that 100 daytime hours, and 20 nighttime hours would be horribly expensive, if they all had to be undertaken with an instructor. At the rates I'm paying at the moment, that would run up £2760. That said, the phrase used is under supervision. Realistically that should include the already existing provision for any qualified driver over 21, and having held a licence for at least three years, to be able to supervise. That would be affected by the potential passenger over 30 rule, during curfew hours.

 

As for the curfew hours, the suggestions there, is they will apply to ALL newly qualified drivers, regardless of age. Great, that throws out the trekking across various parts of rural england, to/from voluntary duties outside of normal working hours, which would previously, have not been a problem. Being able to drive at night is certainly a skill to be taught, but the restrictions here are those they want to impose on drivers who have already been given instruction, and have passed a practical driving test. These additional restrictions aimed at everybody under 30 is entirely unreasonable. At 25 I may have very different reasons and motivation for driving at nighttime hours than an 18 year old, and the same would be true of a 29 year old who would be similarly affected. Granted, there aren't many people learning to drive at that age, but where I live, driving is almost essential. Public transport is non-existant in the majority of the county after 2200.

 

The last major point I think is unworkable is a ban on people under 30 transporting other people under 30 during the 12 month probation. With my voluntary position, I would be in a position where I am unable to get people to events/courses etc. For an event that I need to transport four people to, all of whom would be under-30, I would need to draft in another volunteer, another vehicle, another journies worthwith associated fuel comsumption, when previously a single vehicle could have done the job.

As transport for 'work' related purposes, I would already need insurance cover for business use to carry those passengers.

[jdoldridge]

I will be severely impacted by these new rules, I am 19 and have just bought a 1997 Ford Fiesta as a first car to learn in, I bought this car to I can get passed as early as possible and I need it for work, and for transporting other people to/from work also who are under the age of 30! This is ridiculous and it makes younger drivers feel like the have already done something wrong before they have even passed their test!

[Michael]

I agree that such ideas are not enforceable. We can't just assume all new drivers are 18. You can be any age and pass your driving test.

 

The logical way forward is within the 12 months of learning that drivers are taught how to drive on the motorway, at night and to understand the dangers of drinking and driving and/or drugging and driving. This makes a lot more sense and would prepare new drivers for the many journeys ahead, instead of wasting Police time on identifying which drivers should or shouldn't be driving past a certain time!

[Mrmichaelhill]

I'm 23 and drive a 1998 Toyota Corolla, pay about £1300 a year to insure.

I owned a 1995 Honda CBR600F last year (Motorbike) and paid about £290 for the year!

 

Madness

 

I don't think you should do a 1 day driving test, I think it should be an assessment over a period of time. Everyone has good days, everyone has bad days.

[unixman_again]

The boss of the AA raised some interesting points this morning. Somebody who passes their test at 28 can't drive without a passenger over 30. This very badly affects single parents, people who work in country pubs and restaurants, night shift workers, etc. In countries where there is a curfew, such as New Zealand, drivers can pass their test at 16. There is no substitute for driving experience, and by the time these drivers reach 18 (legal adulthood) they can have two years driving experience.

 

In my own case, I grew up in Australia and I passed my driving licence at 16 but I did not drive a car, preferring to use a motorbike. When I came to Blighty at 36, I sat my UK car licence and although I had road sense, there was no way I was a good driver until a couple of years behind the wheel.

 

I think more should be made of the learning experience. At the mo, anyone can teach somebody else to drive and then the learner can go and pass their test and be let loose on the road. In South Australia, the scheme is a professional driving instructor fills in a logbook on behalf of the learner. Each essential driving skill, such as parking, reversing around a corner, where ticked off when they were done. If regular lessons where taken over the course of a year and the logbook was accurately kept, the driver could get a licence without doing a formal driving test. If you were taught by your parents, then you still keep the logbook but you have to take the formal driving test. For the first 12 months, SA drivers under 25 have P plates and there are restricts as to what they can drive. This is a much more practical system.

[pcstru]

Depends on a lot of circumstances I guess, but in 2011 my first ever insurance premium was £1738 for a 1996 1.3 Nissan Micra - I doubt it's any cheaper for 17 year olds now.

I doubt it is. My stepdaughters boyfriend is ~24ish, just passed his test and was being quoted that kind of figure for a small car. So if the proposals were successful in their aim of reducing the accident statistics, one might presume the cost of insurance should reduce in line with the reduction in risk. So the cost of passing a test goes up (a reflection of higher standards/better training) while the cost of motoring goes down. Seems reasonable to me (in principle).

[pcstru]

I'm 23 and drive a 1998 Toyota Corolla, pay about £1300 a year to insure.

I owned a 1995 Honda CBR600F last year (Motorbike) and paid about £290 for the year!

 

Madness

Not madness at all. It's all about risk (probability AND consequences). You might be somewhat more likely to get yourself killed on the CBR (very nice bike) but you are far more likely to do serious damage to more people in a car and so trigger higher payouts against your insurer.

[localzuk]

I would have thought as a new young driver, that would be the cost of a car + insurance.

 

Maybe so. But that's an extra cost.

[DrPerceptron]

I'm 23 and drive a 1998 Toyota Corolla, pay about £1300 a year to insure.

I owned a 1995 Honda CBR600F last year (Motorbike) and paid about £290 for the year!

 

Madness

 

I don't think you should do a 1 day driving test, I think it should be an assessment over a period of time. Everyone has good days, everyone has bad days.

 

That is madness... I'm 25 and have never paid more than £700 since I was 19... and my current and previous cars were not sensible, practical cars.

 

 

 

 

That said, I don't have a problem with people having a minimum number of lessons with an actual current and qualified instructor (some I've learnt actually aren't!), to be 18. Maybe we should be looking to move to a more inclusive set of driving lessons and tests that resemble the requirements of a license in Finland - 18 hours of instructed driving, a session on a slippery course and there's a city driving aspect to it as well. The fact you can pass your test without driving in the rain, at night or on a motorway is a bit of a joke as well.

 

On the subject of little cars, I once had a 2012 Ibiza Eco as a courtesy car... it had a little 1.2l TDI pushing out an eye-watering 60-70bhp and I did not feel safe in it at all. Braking on its low-resistance tyres was about the length of a football pitch at 30mph and it's acceleration could be best measured with a calendar.

[pcstru]

Maybe so. But that's an extra cost.

The hope is that the result of higher standards would lead to a reduction in insurance costs as risk reduces. So what you lose upfront, you will gain in the first few years of lower premiums.

 

Personally I think that the proposals are reasonable BUT, I would be reasonably happy to see higher standards encouraged by the market. So you choose whether you achieve an A level licence and get lower premiums or you just go for the CGSE and then pay through the nose for insurance because you represent a higher risk. What I think is unacceptable is that we do nothing to stem the carnage of young, inexperienced drivers on the roads.

[Sunnyknight]

That is madness... I'm 25 and have never paid more than £700 since I was 19... and my current and previous cars were not sensible, practical cars.

 

My first car was a lovely mk6 for escort 1.8si. I paid £0 for it, but £3000 a year for insurance.

 

At the moment, i pay £700 for a 1.6 sport ford focus and i'm 23

[DSapseid]

The bit I want to know is the '120 hours supervised driving' bit they suggested. Supervised by who? By parents/other qualified drivers? If so, how is this enforced? Or is it 120 hours with a driving instructor? If so, that's an extra £2400 roughly!

 

I work full time and I wouldn't be able to afford that!

 

No, the ideas here are ridiculous. Better teaching. Better dealing with the idiot driving etc... Crack down on the wheel spinning, the engine revving, car-modding crowd.

 

When my sister lived in france with my mum and stepdad, my mum had to take a 'test' with my sisters instructor to see that she was a good enough driver to be able to supervise my sister.