Banning young people from driving at night?

[Midget]

The engine size restrictions would be stupid. 1. we already have this with insurance fast cars have highly restrictive insurance. 2. It's actually cheaper to insure a larger engined old man's car as a teenager than the standard teenager cars because the statistics show that they are crashed less.

 

My mate had a Lotus7 replica at 17 with a 1.6 zetec engine which was cheaper to insure than a friend who had a 1.4 Saxo.

 

Banning driving at night is also stupid when it's "dark" at 4pm in deepest winter when they'd be leaving college/uni. I wouldn't have been impressed if I drove to uni, stayed a bit late to do some work on the systems (comsc) or talk to a lecturer or just had a late lecture, and then had to walk 20miles home (we can't all live a 10min walk from uni)

[BTCC_Fan]

In my opinion its madness and would be quite hard to enforce ... unless they fit trackers to everyones cars!

 

The problem isn't the young drivers driving at night, its the fact they haven't been taught how to do it.

[Disease]

so why are younger drives the easy one to blame?

 

Because statistcally they are responsible for more accidents, thats just a plain fact in the same way as smoking causes cancer.

[CHR1S]

Because statistcally they are responsible for more accidents, thats just a plain fact in the same way as smoking causes cancer.

 

way to use the quote to your advantage, just like statistics, funny that!

[Disease]

way to use the quote to your advantage, just like statistics, funny that!

The only thing I am using to my advantage is facts. You asked why are younger drivers blamed and the answer is more often than not it's because they are to blame.

 

The advantage of age is that you can look back to your youth and comment, I drove like and idiot when I was in my early twenties as do the majority of 17-25 year olds, now in my 30's I do not break the speed limits, I am just not in a rush to get anywhere now. You can not fudge the figures to suit your arguement that young drivers are not to blame, they are. And they push up insurance for everyone else.

[CHR1S]

The only thing I am using to my advantage is facts. You asked why are younger drivers blamed and the answer is more often than not it's because they are to blame.

 

So why did you ignore my facts to use your own facts. I'm not going to deny the fact that yes, younger drivers do pose a higher risk, but unless I am the exception to the rule those facts are quickly turning into an excuse or stereotype the insurance companies like to roll out to keep premiums and profits high!

[Guest Guest]

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

 

This is one i strongly disagree with;

 

Any car is capible of exceeding 70mph.

Cars under a 1.2 are generally french peices of $^&* with very little consideration for build quality or cornering ability.

Due to the fact they are underpowered people will thrash the ass off them thus exceeding the cars intended purpose and consiquently its build quality; Skinny town tyres, tortion-bar suspension, drum brakes, etc.

 

To me it comes down to the old arguement/statement of "why do they sell knifes when they can be used to stab people with?"

 

Any car is as safe or as dangerous as the driver makes it.

 

 

imo underpowered cars are more dangerous than overpowered cars. When you end up in a situation where you might crash (be it through your own error or not) a proper car will have the accelleration or braking to (hopefully) get you out of it, an underpowered car does not.

 

* Of course I am generallising now but then so is saying a <1.2 is slower than a >1.2

Edited September 21, 2010 by Guest

[arwen]

In my opinion its madness and would be quite hard to enforce ... unless they fit trackers to everyones cars!

 

The problem isn't the young drivers driving at night, its the fact they haven't been taught how to do it.

 

But what about those who have driving lessons in winter?

 

It's nothing to do with drink or the darkness, but all to do with them driving like morons in their social time - which just happens to be at night.

 

If you made every young person work nights so that they were loose during the day, they'd still crash, but only in the daytime.

 

Wonder if there is a study of this... Percentage of 'winter learners' crashing at night vs 'summer learners' ? Could be interesting!

 

Personally I never had a lesson at night, or even dusk, they were all during the day, in the rain! But i found a massive difference when driving at night for the first time. Took me a good few nights of just driving to tesco and back (about 3 miles) to get used to it!

 

The practical test needs a major revamp, and retesting done periodicaly through your life would be beinfical. Look how many changes have been made to the highway code in last 10 years, and how many older drivers know about priority or dealing with cross roads?

The one key thing I have learned since passing my test is how to read other drivers. and guess what they are about to do. Some drivers may 'know the code' but just choose to ignore it, most instructors do not prepare you for that!

[Disease]

So why did you ignore my facts to use your own facts. I'm not going to deny the fact that yes, younger drivers do pose a higher risk, but unless I am the exception to the rule those facts are quickly turning into an excuse or stereotype the insurance companies like to roll out to keep premiums and profits high!

 

You are using 2 personal experiences to support your arguement, one of which you say is a driver over 40+, thats only a personal Straw poll vs statistics from accidents nationally, hardly comparable.

[CHR1S]

You are using 2 personal experiences to support your arguement, one of which you say is a driver over 40+, thats only a personal Straw poll vs statistics from accidents nationally, hardly comparable.

 

Both were older drivers Vs me the younger driver... so were my accidents excused from the national statistics because they were personal to me?

 

Some random google found me these statistics not exactly relevant but prove interesting -

 

2,739 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2008, down 13.7% from 3,174 in 2007 and down 20.2% from 3,431 in 1998.

 

Decreasing.....

 

Drivers ages 15-20 accounted for 12% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2008 and 14% of all drivers involved in police-reported crashes.

 

So that means a massive 88% are older drivers.....

 

Statistics show that 16- and 17-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger (IIHS).

 

Now that's an important fact...

 

All from here - Teen Driving Statistics

[localzuk]

Both were older drivers Vs me the younger driver... so were my accidents excused from the national statistics because they were personal to me?

 

'Statistical anomaly' comes to mind.

 

So that means a massive 88% are older drivers.....

 

It means that there are a larger number of accidents for that age group than there are drivers. ie. 12% of drivers are not aged 15-20...

 

Add in the fact that those are US teens, not UK and its a different kettle of fish.

 

Some counter stats for you from the UK - http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DBR55uTZZzEJ:www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-02198.pdf+road+accidents+by+age+uk&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjgXLeA1MYspdl_GhYVCIIpQzfUZxwwajFsUe2RhbppvWWL1Tt5hbslrEBOHcDMoz_xJFsmDih1auBn3ZG_vgTOGjDzY6uPEydP0TVDRx3eXSZVLvazFN7vkVwQiq2DbdtvWZM_&sig=AHIEtbTh_1G9WqAr1wKKRjMYcU-gyfOVyQ

 

Of the 7,967 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2008, 12% were aged 17 to 19, 28%

were aged 20 to 29, 42% were aged 30 to 59, 8% were aged 60 to 69 and and 8% were

over 70. Although the legal minimum age for car drivers is seventeen, 33 young people aged

under 17 were killed or seriously injured ‘behind the wheel’ during 2008

 

So, 12% of fatalities are 17-19! It is certainly not the case that 12% of our drivers are aged 17-19.

 

Put it this way. The group 17 - 29, a 13 year age group had 38% of fatalities. The next 29 years involved were 42%. That is a big difference! (ie. over double the number of fatalities compared to the older group).

 

That is again reflected in passenger deaths:

 

A total of 11,896 people were killed or seriously injured in cars in 2008, one-third of whom

were car passengers (33%). 17% of car passengers killed or seriously injured in 2008 were

aged under 17, 21% were aged 17 to 19, and 25% were aged 20 to 29.

Edited September 21, 2010 by localzuk

[Disease]

Chr1s, you know that site is American and therefore has no bearing on UK statistics?

 

Damn Localzuk, you beat me to it.

[CHR1S]

Its shouldn't matter where the statistics come from, I was using them to show how I can selectively use them to prove whatever I like! Like the point of saying 88% of deaths were "older" people.

 

Isnt the saying 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

[localzuk]

Its shouldn't matter where the statistics come from, I was using them to show how I can selectively use them to prove whatever I like! Like the point of saying 88% of deaths were "older" people.

 

Isnt the saying 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

 

Your point is moot though (or as Joey in Friends would say 'Moo, like a cows opinion'), as it proves nothing relevant to this discussion. Matching up age groups to the number of drivers in cars is more suitable - however, finding the driving demographics is a little tough, as the UK govt doesn't seem to publish them, so we can only work by comparing age groups.

Edited September 21, 2010 by localzuk

[CHR1S]

Its all a Moo point lol.... oh well, its time to go home.. im tired

[witch]

Distilling the various ideas here and taking on board the reasons why restricting night driving would be unreasonable, I think that my idea of a compulsory refresher (NOT necessarily a full test) is a good idea, not least because of new laws and ideas, and I also think that when you pass your test, you should have to do a bit of supervised night and motorway driving before you get your final certificate. Maybe you could have an identifying sign on your car until you have done this? Oh and zero tolerance for drink driving

[mossj]

Read the first few pages, so sorry if this steers the thread in a direction it's already gone....

 

But why can't the gov make pass plus madatory? this is 6, 1 hour long lessons usually in your own car with a driving instructor. You go over all the usual stuff + Motorways + City + Night driving.

 

 

Also young people unless very rich are already limited to not so powerful cars by insurance costs. (950cc austin mini with disc brakes was £1200 for me at 17)

[Martin]

...of course everybody is missing the best solution to the problem of deaths (and injuries and accidents etc.) on the road - more trained traffic police out on the job!!!!

 

That way, sensible young drivers can go about their business at night, in daddies Ferrari, with their sensible mates and not get any hassle.

 

Meanwhile the reckless, drunken, bald-tyred, uninsured, half-blind, drugged-up, failed MOT, nearly asleep, un-taxed, faulty lighting, never passed a test, inconsiderate nutters (be they in a car, on a bicycle, as a pedestrian or whatever) would be liable to draw attention to themselves and be subjected to a stop for further questioning and investigation (and where appropriate, prosecution).

 

The trouble is that that costs money, and for the authorities the old "if it saves just one life" only applies if we are paying for it ourselves (they have senior executive lifestyles to fund ).

 

mb

[localzuk]

...of course everybody is missing the best solution to the problem of deaths (and injuries and accidents etc.) on the road - more trained traffic police out on the job!!!!

 

What, pay for more muppets like those officers who arrested pro-life protesters recently for 'causing alarm, harassment or distress' whilst ignoring the secondary conditions of that law being that those people have to be being 'abusive, threatening or insulting'. (note, I disagree with their argument, but dislike seeing so many police officers now with zero grasp of the law).

 

(Sorry, couldn't just let a suggestion like that pass without a glib remark - I do actually agree, more police is one of the answers, but we don't have the money for more).

Edited September 21, 2010 by localzuk

[Rydra]

I was greeted by a couple of police officers last night (had to call them to deal with some kids being idiotic and interupting a meeting, and refusing to leave private property). As we stood outside chatting to them briefly, someone further down the road attempted to pull their car off the driveway, and barely suceeded, with large amounts of disengaged clutch revving, and a 5 point turn to pull off of the driveway.... They had to cut their conversation short to go and catch him, as suspected the driver was either 12 years old or drunk off their face!

 

I was very tempted to go follow them and see if they caught up, but as i hadn't been home for over 14 hours i decided to just head home the direct route.

 

As to the statistics, I would agree that a young driver is more likely to behave like an idiot in a car etc. And though insurance companies don't distinguish them, there is a difference between having an accident and behaving like an idiot and causing an accident.

 

But if you raised the minimum driving age to 25, those stats would very likely change to 25-30 years old being the most accident prone, since only part of the problem is idiot drivers, the other part is the young persons part.

 

Me, I'm a believer in darwinism, and have a dim view of people who knowingly put themselves at risk, and just as dim a view as others who put themselves at risk by associating with idiots. I've told people to let me out of a car before, and reported taxi drivers for driving like an idiot because I just don't want to die (60mph down a residential street in the winter with below freezing temperatures....) Thankfully the human race is capable of dynamic learning, evaluation and responsive processessing. It's what stops us from wondering what it feels like to shoot yourself in the face, jump off a cliff or stick your fingers in a socket to see what electricity feels like, and then repeat the test.

 

So the concensus was, the original article is a loud of rubbish, a waste of time and effort and a slander to the name of 'scientists'.

-Revamped practical test to cover motorways, night driving and other topics as a compulsory test rather than optional.

-Some sort of retesting at set periods would be beneficial, since bad habits of older drivers is just as bad as young drivers who don't know any better

-Harsher penalties for idiotic/dangerous drivers

 

Some discussion on restrictions on use and car types allowed, but overall this was not recommended, since peoples usage and needs vary, and many of the restrictions would prove impractical.

[Guest Guest]

-Harsher penalties for idiotic/dangerous drivers

 

The problem with that is it is subjective, and simply put the police cba to deal with that sort of thing; black and white is what they like, are you doing more than 70mph, yes or no?... Nice one, one more tick off my quota.

[woodham]

[Arwen}

 

 

 

The practical test needs a major revamp, and retesting done periodicaly through your life would be beinfical. Look how many changes have been made to the highway code in last 10 years, and how many older drivers know about priority or dealing with cross roads?

 

Can you explain if you mean younger drivers don’t know about priority or cross roads or if you mean older drivers? As we have had cross roads and priority laws for a very long time

 

cheers

[Sirbendy]

restrict them to driving 2 cylinder, 500cc Diesel Aixam Microcars, with a max attainable speed of 60 on a good day, in faded girlie pink with pink fuzzy seatcovers. Job

jobbed.

 

Even 850cc Reliant Robins are stupidly rapid..hehe...

[arwen]

[Arwen}

 

 

 

The practical test needs a major revamp, and retesting done periodicaly through your life would be beinfical. Look how many changes have been made to the highway code in last 10 years, and how many older drivers know about priority or dealing with cross roads?

 

Can you explain if you mean younger drivers don’t know about priority or cross roads or if you mean older drivers? As we have had cross roads and priority laws for a very long time

 

cheers

 

From my experience it seems older driver dont know, or choose not to follow proritys. Instead they just barge their way through. Where i stay there is lots of cars parked in the street, and plenty of places where two cars cant pass. But in the year that i have lived here I've noticed that its almost always older drivers that barge through. Very rarely have I come nose to nose with a younger driver in that situation.

 

 

The Pass Plus thing is a great idea, but after shelling out £800 on lessons and tests, paying an extra 160ish for pass plus, that only gets you a disscount from a few (expensive) insurers makes you think if its really worth it? I would have loved to go on it, but I was cheeper not doing it putting the money towards insurance for my car, which was less without the disscount from the different company than one on the list of disscounts for Pass Plus drivers.

[somabc]

Isnt the saying 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

 

2/3 of people know that!