Banning young people from driving at night?

[woodham]

just to add to the argument

Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, provides the offence of cycling on a road or public place whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. It states:

30(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.

 

NOTES

 

(i) The evidence of the extent to which a person is affected must be measured by means other than the provision of a specimen of breath, blood or urine, as there is no power to require such a specimen in these circumstances. However, if such a specimen was offered, it is probable that the evidence obtained by analysis of the specimen would be admissible.

(ii) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence.

(iii) In England and Wales a constable may only arrest without warrant in accordance with the powers of arrest set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In such an instance, that power might be exercised where a satisfactory address has not been furnished, or the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent such a person causing physical injury to himself or any other person (see also other conditions in s24 of PACE).

(iv) The absence of a specific power of arrest in England and Wales affects the ability of the police to present any form of medical evidence of the accused's condition.

(v) There is no offence of 'being in charge' of a cycle under the Road Traffic Acts, but such conduct may well be an offence of drunk in charge of a carriage under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. A bicycle or tricycle is a carriage for the purpose of that section.

 

 

so ...

 

im off to grab my popcorn:)

[witch]

OK OK enough....let us return to the original topic which I believe was about banning young people from driving at night.

As the parent of three of these types of people, all of whom are very sensible generally- and have never, as far as I know, been less than sensible in a car, I still would support the 'no passengers' rule for youngsters wholeheartedly. Even though it would cause hassle for my own children. Why? Because I have seen too many cars full of young men egging each other on to drive faster and more dangerously than they should and I wouldnt want anyone to be killed or maimed - either in the car or out of it. Not allowing very fast/large engined cars for anyone under 21 seems a good idea too.

Some young men are easily led and seem to be happy to do things in a 'mob' mentality that they would never do in the cold light of day.

I also think that we should be made to do a refresher course in driving skills every 5 or 10 years. I don't know if I would advocate a whole test, but I would certainly make the issueing of a new licence dependent on the driver having attended one of these courses. That's ALL drivers, whatever age.

[Arcath]

Just stupid, id personally ignore it. In this rural area if i want to get any where i need to drive. Although even it came out no one up here would get caught driving between villages at night your lucky if you see another car let alone the police.

 

its like insurance its the idiots that drink drive and drive unsafely that ruin it for those of us that use a car sensibly.

 

If they want to do it they better half my insurance price seeing as i can only drive half the time, and my road tax too.

[Arcath]

Dragging this back away from cyclist versus car, the main thing I have a problem with here, is using draconian curfews before fixing the issue.

The issue is a minority of young+new drivers see a car as an extension of their epeen, and use it accordingly. A curfew is, unfortunately unlikely to help this.

People who drink drive, speed, or do the various other stupid things like this are unlikely to pay attention to the time at which they do it. And for the police to enforce it will take much more effort and manpower, and though it may work in general, many more people will be put out and inconvenienced in the process.

 

At 26 and 7+ years of driving, how is a police officer going to know to pull me over to ask for my ID, unless I was doing something wrong in the first place? Unless they just start randomly pulling over anyone driving at 2am, and having been stopped like this a couple of times, at 1-2am around xmas, it is mostly an annoyance and inconvenience.

 

Improve the driving test which is woefully outdated. Too much emphasis on things like parallel parking, three point turns etc. while ignoring the more important things like how to drive on dual carriageways/motorways, nightime driving, hell i think there should a compulsory session on driving with passengers/full load of stuff, as a car handles VERY differently when you load up the rear, reducing traction, speed, and increasing distractions.

I wouldn't mind seeing a repeat test within a short period of time.

EG, pass the test, then 6 months later having to do another short test (preferably in own vehicle) to make sure you haven't ignored everything you did in learning, THEN getting full license? This could work nicely especially as the "Study" showed most have an accident in the first 6 months...

And bring in harsher penalties for those who break the law in regards to drink driving, dangerous driving, and speeding in

pedestrianised zones.

 

I agree completely, after i passed (18 months ago) i was still finding that there was things i hadn't been taught. And the car loading thing is a very good point they need to know what its like when you have a 1.2 petrol car that full of camping gear and barely able to do 60, with people in aswell making it impossible to see out the back and side windows.

 

The police seem to approach young drivers with "guilty till proven innocent attitiude", when i wrote off my car it had only just been serviced (3 weeks ago) since then i had noticed that it didnt feel right (really should have take it back to the garage). At a relatively slow speed it span off the road into a wall. The police that turned up simply said "so how far over the speed limit where you?" when i said that the car potentially had a fault his response was "if you go down that route i will have the crash investigators out to prove you where going too fast"... which to my mind is completely wrong.

[sonofsanta]

I wouldn't mind seeing a repeat test within a short period of time.

EG, pass the test, then 6 months later having to do another short test (preferably in own vehicle) to make sure you haven't ignored everything you did in learning, THEN getting full license? This could work nicely especially as the "Study" showed most have an accident in the first 6 months...

This is what I was going to suggest, but you've beaten me to it by ten minutes... (damn my busy morning). The system that's long overdue is to bring the advanced test into law, because as so many have said, the learner test teaches you to pass the learner test, and only after that do you learn to drive. How are you meant to learn motorways when you can't go on them until you're already certified safe to be on them? Ridiculous.

 

Ideal system in my mind would be to pass the learner test as you do now, at which point you are then on probation for 2 years (carrying a P plate, possibly with restrictions), and at some point in those 2 years you have to pass the advanced test before you are a full driver. If you fail to do so then you cannot drive without being accompanied by a fully qualified driver until you do pass it. The level of driving in this country is appalling and bad habits are collected so frequently that we need to improve the quality of the training and ideally enforce a retest every ten years or so (and if you fail, you have X extra lessons booked before you are approved to drive again without the P plate). Obviously this is not a precise plan, but you get the idea - we need a higher level test to follow the learner test, and we need retests.

 

I live in a rural county, I literally cannot get anywhere without a car, I drive an hour to work, but I would love nothing more than to see these restrictions placed on it. Without getting involved in the cyclists/cars debate that's raged, cars are dangerous - not if used correctly, true, but with all the will in the world accidents still happen and people can get killed. Better training to reduce the risk of those accidents, improve driver reactions to them would make a hell of a difference. Right now our driver preparation is almost negligent.

 

Is it also not illegal to be drunk in charge of a bike?

Yes it is - and horses too.

 

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?

I think we absolutely should say that, yes

[Rydra]

OK OK enough....let us return to the original topic which I believe was about banning young people from driving at night.

As the parent of three of these types of people, all of whom are very sensible generally- and have never, as far as I know, been less than sensible in a car, I still would support the 'no passengers' rule for youngsters wholeheartedly. Even though it would cause hassle for my own children. Why? Because I have seen too many cars full of young men egging each other on to drive faster and more dangerously than they should and I wouldnt want anyone to be killed or maimed - either in the car or out of it. Not allowing very fast/large engined cars for anyone under 21 seems a good idea too.

Some young men are easily led and seem to be happy to do things in a 'mob' mentality that they would never do in the cold light of day.

I also think that we should be made to do a refresher course in driving skills every 5 or 10 years. I don't know if I would advocate a whole test, but I would certainly make the issueing of a new licence dependent on the driver having attended one of these courses. That's ALL drivers, whatever age.

 

I still don't think it's fair to restrict the usage of a vehicle. As someone earlier pointed out, sometimes a young person drives for the sole purpose of transport of others, so to ban passengers would be unfair. Also, banning engine sizes will only cause more issues as well, since many young people's first car will be their parents.

 

I honestly think engine/car size has little to do with it, and in fact the small/cheap little cars are half the problem.

 

A 17 year old with a £500 1l bangar car is more likely to thrash it than someone driving a £10k 2l Astra estate. especially if mum/dad have paid for it, the insurance, and responsible for repairing it!

 

Edit: missed a bit!

 

Plus I love the idea of 5-10 year retesting for ALL ages. The amount of adults I know with long held bad habits is amazing.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Rydra

[localzuk]

I still don't think it's fair to restrict the usage of a vehicle. As someone earlier pointed out, sometimes a young person drives for the sole purpose of transport of others, so to ban passengers would be unfair.

 

But how do you counter the 'driving like an idiot to show off to friends' problem then?

[jamesb]

Don't like cars do you?

 

Virtually anything couls be a Lethal Device or Leathal Weapon. But only with intent. How many drivers go to work or anywhere intending to kill?

 

Actually I drive quite happily, though not short distances. I don't like bad driving at all, having had it put me at risk too many times, and also am not a fan of the Clarkson driving culture (I'm a driver, therefore more important than anyone else).

 

You're perfectly right, most things can become a lethal device with intent. Cars can become one without intent. As to how many drivers go to work intending to kill, no idea, but in 2008 2,538 drivers went somewhere and did kill, with 26,029 causing serious injury.

 

But how do you counter the 'driving like an idiot to show off to friends' problem then?

 

Immediate disqualification until a more advanced test is taken and confiscation of the vehicle until the user has demonstrated an ability not to drive like an idiot, rather than a caution, fine, or a few dots on a piece of card?

 

Alternatively you could go for something like the GPS tags given to some people, monitoring driving practices of those involved for safety. If they don't drive safely, you penalise them more. Also has the potential benefit/drawback of making bad drivers unlikely to take other bad drivers as passengers - which speed racer would want to take a passenger who can get them caught just by sitting in the car?

Edited September 21, 2010 by jamesb

[Jamman960]

Can't see this ever being implimented, it'd cost the government far too much in lost tax income and would probably lead to widespread law breaking.

 

I learnt to drive for a reason, mainly because I wasn't going to get a promotion/pay rise without being able to drive around the country visiting various schools. If I'd have got a license and then not been able to drive at night for the first 2 years I simply couldn't have done the same job and I doubt my employer would have hired me in the first place. "Sorry, our engineers can't drive at night so they'll need to leave site by 3.00 at the latest" wouldn't have cut it.

[localzuk]

Immediate disqualification until a more advanced test is taken and confiscation of the vehicle until the user has demonstrated an ability not to drive like an idiot, rather than a caution, fine, or a few dots on a piece of card?

 

Relies on them being seen being prats though doesn't it?

 

Alternatively you could go for something like the GPS tags given to some people, monitoring driving practices of those involved for safety. If they don't drive safely, you penalise them more. Also has the potential benefit/drawback of making bad drivers unlikely to take other bad drivers as passengers - which speed racer would want to take a passenger who can get them caught just by sitting in the car?

 

Doesn't really tackle the issue - teens with other teens in the car, showing off. I know this isn't PC but think $generic 'essex boy' showing off to a girl by speeding about...

[garethEds]

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

 

Agree totally. I'm not sure why each Government waffles around this subject. Never mind lowering the limit - just set it to 0. No arguing, no confusion.

 

Of course you will always get those who will do it anyway, but I agree they should be banned for life when caught.

 

GJE

[jamesb]

Relies on them being seen being prats though doesn't it?

 

As does absolutely everything else which doesn't restrict far more people than it should. It's the trade-off between allowing prats to get away with it by not getting caught, and locking us all in our homes with cameras in each room.

 

Doesn't really tackle the issue - teens with other teens in the car, showing off. I know this isn't PC but think $generic 'essex boy' showing off to a girl by speeding about...

 

At least makes them less likely to get away with it twice.

[TechMonkey]

I would say the engine size is the best compromise. Ok who ever it was that had the problem with the Astra has a valid point but then the solution is don't get that car! There are plenty of non-sluggish small engined cars. The system has worked fine with motorbikes, new riders get experience on a restricted or smaller engined vehicle and can then progress or stay where they are. There are always going to be those that lose out on any new plan but you could well say that we should allow under 16s to drive as they are missing out getting to jobs or getting to youth events. It's either restrictive with the end result being the restrictions lifted or the ultimate restriction, which is best avoided.

 

The test problems are valid as well. I had a friend who told me about a girl at her work place that passed first time. She was so pleased as that proved what a safe driver she was. But she then had her dad pick her up for the next couple of months as she wasn't happy driving in the dark, rain, cloud, sun, on country roads, on dual carriage ways etc etc etc. The stories you hear of some of the reasons for failing as well.

[gshaw]

If I was PM I would look into the following for under 21 drivers.

 

1) Drive a vehicle of up to a 1.2 engine only.

2) Force a retest if they get any points.

3) A no drive if you drink policy (a court to decide if they consume cough medicine and it knowingly impared their driving).

4) No more than 2 passengers.

 

1) sensible suggestion, should be from 17-21 and done straight away

2) nope, how would you feel losing your license because of a sneaky camera e.g. right at the start of the change from a 50 to a 30 zone, temp roadworks limit etc where limits are unclear. Tbh we should junk the points system for minor offences and just do fines, for 10% over the limit etc then do the bans and so on

3) good idea if our country used common sense for the situations mentioned beforehand... unfortunately we don't have much of it these days

4) how does that make any difference?

 

The study smacks of more sensationalist nonsense designed solely to get the scientist involved some kudos points and a few column inches in the newspaper. Unworkable idea that would cause massive inconvenience and enforcement issues for debatable gains. As usual much more sensible ideas get overlooked for some over the top idea that'll come to nothing anyway!

 

Better driver training will make better drivers, Pass Plus is a start then I reckon at 21 you'd have to do an IAM course or something similar before getting the license upgrade to the bigger engined cars. If you appreciate how the car handles and how to control it you're going to be much better off than just getting a shedload of power and no clue how to drive safely with it.

 

And for those of you suggesting GPS tags are you crazy? Do you really want to invite government spying into your cars?!?! Next thing people will be asking for pay-as-you-drive taxes then we will be in trouble...

[Disease]

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.

 

I would go for this, then with less boy racers on the road my insurance may go down

[arwen]

If I was PM I would look into the following for under 21 drivers.

 

1) Drive a vehicle of up to a 1.2 engine only. Find me an estate/big booted car that can survive on that engine? Some of us need to carry equipment/dogs/lots of stuff. Most, if not all <1.2 cars are tiny...

2) Force a retest if they get any points. This is already kinda in place, if u get 6 points within two years of passing your test it is disqualificaion on the spot, and you have to pay and reset both theory and practical tests. 6 points is 2 speeding offences i think.

3) A no drive if you drink policy (a court to decide if they consume cough medicine and it knowingly impared their driving). Agreed

4) No more than 2 passengers.What about those with kids?

 

 

 

Mostly better education/scare tatics would cure most people from acting stupid. But there will always be boy/girl racers that just want to show off.

Edited September 21, 2010 by arwen
changed colour

[Disease]

1) sensible suggestion, should be from 17-21 and done straight away

2) nope, how would you feel losing your license because of a sneaky camera e.g. right at the start of the change from a 50 to a 30 zone, temp roadworks limit etc where limits are unclear. Tbh we should junk the points system for minor offences and just do fines, for 10% over the limit etc then do the bans and so on

3) good idea if our country used common sense for the situations mentioned beforehand... unfortunately we don't have much of it these days

4) how does that make any difference?

 

The study smacks of more sensationalist nonsense designed solely to get the scientist involved some kudos points and a few column inches in the newspaper. Unworkable idea that would cause massive inconvenience and enforcement issues for debatable gains. As usual much more sensible ideas get overlooked for some over the top idea that'll come to nothing anyway!

 

Better driver training will make better drivers, Pass Plus is a start then I reckon at 21 you'd have to do an IAM course or something similar before getting the license upgrade to the bigger engined cars. If you appreciate how the car handles and how to control it you're going to be much better off than just getting a shedload of power and no clue how to drive safely with it.

 

And for those of you suggesting GPS tags are you crazy? Do you really want to invite government spying into your cars?!?! Next thing people will be asking for pay-as-you-drive taxes then we will be in trouble...

 

2. Your suggestion there is almost as crazy as lets not send people to jail for shop lifting, laws are laws and the points system is there to take people off of the roads who constantly break the law, like boy racers.

[Andrew_C]

I'd favour a progressive entitlement, similar to the bike system. I also think that the test regime is fundamentally flawed. Daughter's BF is just 18 and has failed twice in fairly rapid succession. Quite deservedly; though not for the reasons he did fail. He is basically unaware of anything beyond what is required to pass the test. How and when to use lights, navigation, and the like.

 

Further, I do think we will all have GPS devices in our cars before too many years pass (not that I necessarily agree). These will be used for taxing as well as traffic enforcement.

 

When looking at replacement cars a couple of years back, I tried a Smart. The dealer had bought both of his daughters 2 seaters, and wasn't too worried that they were quite quick, chipped cars, as with only one passenger seat there wasn't any real scope for teen egging on from the back seat drivers. Struck me as a quite sensible.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Andrew_C

[fafster]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been covered (don't have time to read it either, unfortunately), but I'm going back to the argument of banning teens from driving at night because they're more likely to have an accident. IMO the reason that teens are more likely to have an accident is due to inexperience of driving at night. By stopping anyone under, say, 25 from driving at night, you're going to push the demographic of the accident group from teenagers to those aged 25+ because that group won't have had any prior experience.

 

The logical flaw with that argument should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

[creese]

You're perfectly right, most things can become a lethal device with intent. Cars can become one without intent. As to how many drivers go to work intending to kill, no idea, but in 2008 2,538 drivers went somewhere and did kill, with 26,029 causing serious injury.

 

You are not really getting it are you? A weapon is something that is used with the intention to kill or mame. Not something that has killed or mamed. The clue here is intention. Next you will be charging Tesco with murder because they supplied the food that someone choked to death on.

 

To stick with the topic. I learned relatively late, to drive, about 24. I have never injured anyone, although I had a couple of minor accidents, both at walking pace.

 

An interesting program last night 'Mythbusters' showed the difference between a car doing 50 into a steel wall and a car doing 100 into the same wall. The point being that the 100 MPH crash was a great deal than twice the amount of damage not the twice as much expected. Also two cars doing 50 head on do not create an impact of 100 but both cars an impact of 50 each. My point being there should be a lot more education when learning to drive other than manouvres etc. A spell in front of a screen seeing the result of accidents wouldn't go amiss.

[AyatollahPies]

I wouldn't have thought this was even an issue. A colleague of mine having just passed his test, owning a 1 litre, 10 year old Micra is having to pay just short of £3k to insure the damn thing.

 

I don't know how the young 'uns can even afford to drive!

[pete]

Why not tag-on a compulsory night-driving course?

 

i.e

a) Pass test.

b) Complete night-driving course within $reasonable_time of passing test or license suspended?

[Rydra]

TBH, most of the existing systems for stopping these problems are about the best they can be.

We already have set levels for alcohol, with a lower limit (where you get points/fined), and a higher one (where it's debateable if your conscious and lose your license) as well as speed limits and clear procedures for dangerous driving.

 

They, imo are not at fault here, though sanctions for repeat offenses at any/all ages and experience could possibly do with tweaking, mostly in the direction of harsher penalties.

 

What is at fault is the views of some 'scientists' who make these studies, and then come out with outrageous suggestions that wouldn't even work if you lived inside a scripted computer game, let alone in real life.

 

It all comes down to education, and reaches beyond just driving cars. With proper education, teenagers would not be out binge drinking, stealing cars, getting pregnant or any of those other stereotypical things that young people do.

 

Firstly educate people about what is right and wrong, and WHY!!!! "Don't do that!" only works if they have a sense of reasoning, which requires an understanding of why they shouldn't do it, and what will happen WHEN they do it. It's a problem that many of us in education see regularly, that rules are in place everywhere, and children do not see an issue with breaking them. They don't see a good reason for the rules, so THEIR REASONING says it doesn't apply.

 

THEN bring in sanctions to stop the MINORITY who decide, despite the above that the rules don't apply to them.

[Arcath]

engine size isn't worth restricting, my 1.2 could go pretty fast, just ran out of steam once it got upto motorway speeds, so in towns and country lanes it wont help.

 

Plus some cars don't come with small engines like my focus under those rules you'd basically be saying that i couldn't have my current car. I can afford the insurance, the road tax and the maintenance so why shouldn't i have it?

[CHR1S]

I passed my test 1st time, I considered myself to be a good driver, but, 10 years later I have gained a million times more experience and am a much better driver but I bet you £100 I would not be able to pass a driving test again because of the silly habits that I have picked up. Does this mean that I am a worse drive than the newly passed?

 

In my experience, night driving was never a problem for me at any point in my driving life, motorway driving on the other hand was a whole new ball game than pootling around under the orange streetlights!

 

Even engine size wont help, I have driven cars from 998cc to 4L all of them if not driven with due care can be a handful at any age.

 

Something else to consider, I have been in 2 accidents, not one of them was my fault! The other diver was not young or reckless, but an oblivious 40/50 year old who switched off, panicked and lost control of their car. Neither speed, road conditions or showing off was a factor, so why are younger drives the easy one to blame?