Banning young people from driving at night?

[Rydra]

I heard on the radio this morning, but can't find a recent article on this.

 

Apparently some crackpot scientist has decided the way to cut young driver deaths is to ban them from driving at nighttime, saying this could save 200 lives each year.

 

Anyone else see how utterly stupid this is? I finish work each night at 5-6pm, and during the winter it is pitch black at this time.

-No more 9-5 jobs for young people.

-No more nightshift's

-No more able to go out at night unless it's walkable or the parents drive you there.

 

What about young parents? you know there are people who have children before they are 34!

Then there's anyone who works with youth movements (such as scouting).

 

There are so many flaws in this idea that I just cannot concieve them all.

 

Idiotic plans like this annoy me, and the crackpots who come up with this make REAL scientists look bad. A REAL scientist weighs up ALL possibilities and checks for alternative outcomes before suggesting something.

[jamesb]

-No more able to go out at night unless it's walkable or the parents drive you there.

 

While I agree with the rest of your points, and agree that banning young people from driving at night would be a bad idea, this one's a different matter. Most of the time young people are going out at night to have a drink. If they're going out to have a drink it should be walkable, cyclable, a lift, taxi, bus, or something else that doesn't involve driving.

 

Of course I'm also firmly of the belief that cars should be banned for all journeys under eight miles, and bicycles provided instead, but apparently I'm a bit of an extremist on that one.

[webman]

Just lower the drink-drive limit to 0 and ban people from driving for life when caught.

[Robz]

On BBC news is the story:

 

BBC News - New driver restrictions 'would save lives'

 

Stupid idea in my eyes but I can understand the logic.

[Hightower]

If they're going out to have a drink it should be cyclable

 

Yeah, because that's not dangerous at all is it now?!

[SteveT]

I think we should just ban young people ............ solve lots of problems at a stroke!!!!

[featured_spectre]

Do like they do in Oman

 

You can drive and pass your test at the age of 16

You are only allowed to drive at night if you are 21 and have had a valid licence for 2 years or more

If you drink and drive you are sentenced to 5 years in prison (if you have hit someone then it goes up a considerable amount), $100'000 fine (minimum) and banned for life

 

Guaranteed you will see a sharp drop in accidents and such like.

[creese]

Just lower the drink-drive limit to 0 and ban people from driving for life when caught.

 

Great until you have some cough mixture or one of the many other things containing a small amount of alcohol.

[srochford]

I heard on the radio this morning, but can't find a recent article on this.

 

Anyone else see how utterly stupid this is? I finish work each night at 5-6pm, and during the winter it is pitch black at this time.

-No more 9-5 jobs for young people.

-No more nightshift's

-No more able to go out at night unless it's walkable or the parents drive you there.

 

Sorry; but that's nonsense!

 

When I was a "young person" (admittedly a long time ago) people managed to do jobs that were outside the 9-5 range without needing to drive - they got buses, they walked, they cycled etc.

 

Now I'm not saying that banning young people driving at night is a good idea but to suggest that it's nearly impossible to survive without driving at night is just as extreme!

[pscott]

Great until you have some cough mixture or one of the many other things containing a small amount of alcohol.

 

Such as mouthwash!

[MatthewL]

It is a stupid idea, I am a young driver and to be honest I do most of my driving at night, back and forth from my mates and that. Utterley stupid idea I think.

[sted]

what about limiting what cars they can drive so no 17 year old goes out and buys a focus rs/subaru imprezza/evo other fast car what about limiting people to say <1600cc for the first 2 years of driving (dosent a bike licence work this way now so you cant pass your test then go out on a 999 ducatti)

 

Part of the problem is like any test a driving test just proves you can pass a test not drive. People need to gain experience to drive well and if you limit them to daylight hours that seriously curtails that (esp the further north you go). More sensible would be banning the carrying of passengers (or severly limiting it) but even if you do ban night driving etc how on earth are you going to enforce it?

 

Just lower the drink-drive limit to 0 and ban people from driving for life when caught.

 

as others have said mothwash etc can trigger that low a limit unless you allow officers discretion for really low readings

[jamesb]

Yeah, because that's not dangerous at all is it now?!

 

No, not really.

 

If you're driving you are in charge of a tonne or more of metal propelled by powerful internal explosions at speeds of up to 120 m.p.h along roads. At even at a much lower speed the effects of an impact will not only likely kill you, but anyone else involved, or cause severe injury and damage.

 

If you're cycling you're in charge of a few kilos of metal (at most) propelled by your own leg power at speeds of up to 20 m.p.h (if you're a very fit cyclist, more likely around 12 m.p.h). If you fall off you will most likely end up with a few grazes and bruises unless you are exceptionally unlucky. You will also find that if you are too drunk to control the bike properly, you will simply fall off as cycling requires much greater balance, alertness and concentration than driving. Someone too drunk to stand can climb into a car, start the engine and slam their foot onto the accelerator - try that on a bike and you'll end up lying on the floor, giggling.

 

More importantly even at top speed on a bike you are likely to injure only yourself, and then not severely. If by some miracle you manage to hit a pedestrian (very difficult, the bar stewards dodge like you wouldn't believe possible) then you're still likely to cause only a bruise.

 

So no, it's no more dangerous than walking home drunk - which is an option with a bike, since you can walk it home and lean on it for support.

[sippo]

What about older people aswell? Over 70's can be a nightmare on the road!!

[sted]

What about older people aswell? Over 70's can be a nightmare on the road!!

 

the problem is so can anone so short of making people sit retests every 5-10 years what can you do? And even when banned how many people still drive anyway?

[TechMonkey]

I haven't looked at it but I have a feeling this is badly reported. I think the idea of night time is a prescribed time, so between the hours of 11 & 5. A few friends have their insurance under these terms because it has been proven that young adults driving at these times are more vulnerable. They don't seem to have a problem with it and the amount if drops the insurance it is well worth it. On the other hand this could be from the same study that proves women are safer drivers so get cheaper insurance.

 

I definitely approve of the idea of having the same idea as motorbikes on cars, only allowed a certain engine size until you have experience.

[Hightower]

No, not really.

 

If you're driving you are in charge of a tonne or more of metal propelled by powerful internal explosions at speeds of up to 120 m.p.h along roads. At even at a much lower speed the effects of an impact will not only likely kill you, but anyone else involved, or cause severe injury and damage.

 

If you're cycling you're in charge of a few kilos of metal (at most) propelled by your own leg power at speeds of up to 20 m.p.h (if you're a very fit cyclist, more likely around 12 m.p.h). If you fall off you will most likely end up with a few grazes and bruises unless you are exceptionally unlucky. You will also find that if you are too drunk to control the bike properly, you will simply fall off as cycling requires much greater balance, alertness and concentration than driving. Someone too drunk to stand can climb into a car, start the engine and slam their foot onto the accelerator - try that on a bike and you'll end up lying on the floor, giggling.

 

More importantly even at top speed on a bike you are likely to injure only yourself, and then not severely. If by some miracle you manage to hit a pedestrian (very difficult, the bar stewards dodge like you wouldn't believe possible) then you're still likely to cause only a bruise.

 

So no, it's no more dangerous than walking home drunk - which is an option with a bike, since you can walk it home and lean on it for support.

 

That's a pretty ignorant view to take IMO. You must be a keen cyclist to be so closed minded. Personally, I find cyclists a hazard on our roads as it is. Add 5 or 6 pints and you have a firework. I'm not saying it is more dangerous than drink driving, but to say that it's not dangerous to ride home after a drink is idiotic.

[creese]

Someone too drunk to stand can climb into a car, start the engine and slam their foot onto the accelerator - try that on a bike and you'll end up lying on the floor, giggling.

.

 

Until a car runs over you or swerves to avoid you, ploughing into the family car coming the other way?

[jamesb]

That's a pretty ignorant view to take IMO. You must be a keen cyclist to be so closed minded. Personally, I find cyclists a hazard on our roads as it is. Add 5 or 6 pints and you have a firework. I'm not saying it is more dangerous than drink driving, but to say that it's not dangerous to ride home after a drink is idiotic.

 

I see this attitude a lot from car drivers, that cyclists are an inconvenience to them. It's the same sort of attitude that leads to car drivers claiming cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, or that they're only endangering themselves, and many other bits of vicious nonsense which lead to people being knocked off bikes by drivers with a sense of over-entitlement.

 

I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous to cycle drunk, but the risks of cycling after one or two drinks compared to the risks of driving after the same are minimal. The danger on roads comes from drivers, not from pedestrians and cyclists. Trying to blame other road users for the failings of drivers is ignorant at the best.

 

It's dangerous to walk home after a drink as well. Should we then start saying that people just shouldn't leave the pub after a couple of drinks?

 

Until a car runs over you or swerves to avoid you, ploughing into the family car coming the other way?

Again, trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. Are you genuinely trying to claim that someone running over a cyclist, whatever the state of the cyclist, is not the driver's fault? Would you say the same about a drunken pedestrian who's fallen into the road? Or a pedestrian who steps/staggers out unexpectedly causing a car to swerve? If you're not able to be aware of and apprehend the dangers of the unexpected, you shouldn't be driving a lethal weapon at all.

[Robz]

@jamesb

 

certain cyclists are at times more of a danger to themselves and other roads users, even drunk drivers are not as dangerous as some cyclists! I'm not syaing every cyclist is dangerous but the ones I meet are, cycling at a handful of mph on a 60 road when there is a perfeclty safe cylce path next to it is one example, another is jumping traffic lights, and another is blindly cutting you up at junctions/roundabouts.

[Hightower]

I see this attitude a lot from car drivers, that cyclists are an inconvenience to them. It's the same sort of attitude that leads to car drivers claiming cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, or that they're only endangering themselves, and many other bits of vicious nonsense which lead to people being knocked off bikes by drivers with a sense of over-entitlement.

 

I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous to cycle drunk, but the risks of cycling after one or two drinks compared to the risks of driving after the same are minimal. The danger on roads comes from drivers, not from pedestrians and cyclists. Trying to blame other road users for the failings of drivers is ignorant at the best.

 

It's dangerous to walk home after a drink as well. Should we then start saying that people just shouldn't leave the pub after a couple of drinks?

 

Again, trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. Are you genuinely trying to claim that someone running over a cyclist, whatever the state of the cyclist, is not the driver's fault? Would you say the same about a drunken pedestrian who's fallen into the road? Or a pedestrian who steps/staggers out unexpectedly causing a car to swerve? If you're not able to be aware of and apprehend the dangers of the unexpected, you shouldn't be driving a lethal weapon at all.

 

Those really are extreme views IMO. I haven't got the attitude that cyclists are an inconvenience to drivers. I have the attitude that roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles, and special bike roads (cycle lanes I think you call them) should be provided for cyclists. Your post comes across as though drivers are to blame for all accidents, which I think is completely stupid.

 

As for walking home drunk - it can be dangerous, but in most areas now there are special bridleways (called paths I think) that allow the user a safer journey home. Cyclists can't use paths, and must use the road when special bike roads don't exist - are you seriously saying that if a drunk rider fell or swerved on a road (primarily for cars) and got knocked over it would be the drivers fault?!

[creese]

I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous to cycle drunk, but the risks of cycling after one or two drinks compared to the risks of driving after the same are minimal. The danger on roads comes from drivers, not from pedestrians and cyclists. Trying to blame other road users for the failings of drivers is ignorant at the best.

 

It's dangerous to walk home after a drink as well. Should we then start saying that people just shouldn't leave the pub after a couple of drinks?

 

Again, trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. Are you genuinely trying to claim that someone running over a cyclist, whatever the state of the cyclist, is not the driver's fault? Would you say the same about a drunken pedestrian who's fallen into the road? Or a pedestrian who steps/staggers out unexpectedly causing a car to swerve? If you're not able to be aware of and apprehend the dangers of the unexpected, you shouldn't be driving a lethal weapon at all.

 

Lethal weapon, you kill me, my car has never, repeat never killed anyone or anything larger than a fly. So not a lethal weapon. With you probable arguement you bike is a lethal weapon having used poisonous materials to manufacture, machinery capable of killing...... etc. etc.

 

Be sensible. Am i supposed to never drive past a person on a bike in case he suddenly fall off or swerve, same with a walking drunk? Wake up, cyclists have

as much responsibility to drive/ride sober and sensibly as the rest of us. You will also find that people are capable of being and have been killed by bicycles.

[Hightower]

I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous to cycle drunk

 

Yes, yes you are!

 

Yeah, because that's not dangerous at all is it now?!

No, not really.

[tech_guy]

I think they should ban everyone under the age of 22, especially if they drive a modded peugeot, and especially if their name is Brian.

[jamesb]

@jamesb

 

certain cyclists are at times more of a danger to themselves and other roads users, even drunk drivers are not as dangerous as some cyclists! I'm not syaing every cyclist is dangerous but the ones I meet are, cycling at a handful of mph on a 60 road when there is a perfeclty safe cylce path next to it is one example, another is jumping traffic lights, and another is blindly cutting you up at junctions/roundabouts.

 

So your are claiming that a drunk driver in charge of a multi-tonne vehicle capable of travelling at incredible speeds and killing people, is more dangerous than a cyclist in charge of one very light vehicle capable of travelling at the same speed as a very fast sprinter?

 

I agree with you on the traffic lights, bikes on the road are a vehicle and have a legal duty to obey the laws of the road.

 

As to cycle tracks, you may not understand how dangerous a supposedly 'safe' cycle path is. Debris, dirt, bad surfacing, all can be much more dangerous than drivers are aware of. A cyclist actually has a legal right to cycle on the road, and the highway code encourages use of cycle paths where the cyclist considers them 'safe'.

 

Of course, I have seen plenty of cars jumping traffic lights, and blindly cutting me up at juctions and roundabouts, among many other offenses. I've experienced these both when driving and when cycling, as well as cars which jump pedestrian crossings while I was walking. I find it very hard to believe any claim that a cyclist is more dangerous than these morons.