Safe Speed Forums

Hello,
Just been thinking about this (it may already have been suggested elsewhere)
How about a tiered driving licence system something like this:
Level 1 - the equivalent of a provisional licence. After passing the "basic" driving test, you get a Level 2, which would allow you to drive low powered cars (small 1.0L or 1.1L hatch for example)
Then, after a predetermined amount of time (assuming no accidents or bollockings from Plod), you go up to level 2 and so it continues, all the way up to level... erm ... 10 (for example) which would assume you're trustworthy in a Ferrari.
Going up a level could be accelerated by additional training, whilst misdemeanours would result in dropping a level (or two).

This stems from my dispair at seeing late teens/early twenties, presumably just passed their test, blasting around in Golf GTIs/Saxo VTRs and the like. At the moment it is perfectly legal for a 17 year old to pass their test and jump straight into a porsche. The only thing that polices this kind of thing is insurance premiums (and then it only stops those who can't afford it).

Obviously this would be enormously difficult to implement, and I haven't even considered those amongst us who don't consider a licence or insurance to be necessary, but this is the brainstorming part of the forum after all!

Any comments?

We have a similar system in most Australian States generally called a Provisional licence. In New South Wales first year drivers have to show a red on white P-plate (L-plates are black on yellow) and are limited to 90 kph then, after a simulator test its two years with a green on white plate with a restriction to 100 kph followed by a further simulator test which then gives you a full licence. There are also restrictions on alcohol (zero - how do you measure zero?) and passengers at night as well as restrictions on turbo/super charged cars, V8s and high performance cars. There are lots of anomolies such as a BMW 330 is OK for the kids to drive but not a Mercedes C180,

In my view it is a useless system as the simulator tests are extremely poor. Our testing and training regime for the first test (to get P-plates) is the first world's lowest standard.

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.

I like the idea of a graduated license but one that 'climbs' with education and could easily link with other areas such as non accident, but I thin the key is driver quality, not what they drive.
The car manufacturers I think would be unhappy, and then make 1L cars lighter and quicker, so not 'solved that way anyway'.
The enthusiasm that youngsters have needs to be nurtured and guided - it will not work to squash it. You need to gain respect. You need to teach and not be too fearful that the knowledge gained will not result in over-confidence crashes or KSI.
I think a license that grows with you as you learn helps youngesters or older people to learn at any time and is un-restrictive of education, which is I think how it should be.
Those that don't want to learn more than an A to B drive-ability would perhaps be restricted to certain road rules, that that gain to teh highest level are rightly given more responsibility including higher speeds BUT penalties are higher id mistakes are made.
Must not forget that engineering, education and enforcement are keys to safer roads.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Oh yes, graduated licences; where would you put people who can do this?


viewtopic.php?p=204410#p204410

-1 perhaps!

I wouldn't expect anyone of the pro speed camera brigade to have understood what I was on about and put that there to prove a point. The "powerslide" I am talking about might appear to you as a skid....you would probably wet your pants at the same time too.

The manouvere is nothing more complicated than turning the wheel as if turning into the corner and instead of feeding the wheel through your hands you merely blip the throttle to bring the rear wheels around until the cornering is complete then ease off the throttle to continue straight. It is carried out in second gear at no more than 20 MPH. It is not the sort of "power slide" that you watch Jermy Clarkson doing with smoking tyres at 70MPH on Top Gear.

But then I wouldn't expect you to know that....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I floated an idea similar to this on another site years ago. However mine was just that young drivers should be limited to certain power cars/bikes.

Of course there is many things this doesn't solve.

They can still fly off corners, hit kids that run out the road, etc etc.

However, I do think that a lot of young ones (especially boys, but girls seem to be increasing quickly) drive as fast as they can go.

And how many people test out their car when they get one, see how fast it can go..quite a few methinks

Of course education is always better, but since that doesn't seem to be arriving anytime soon, it always wise to put other measures in which might help reduce accidents.

Various pitfalls:

Would the driver suddenly drive at silly speeds when they get an 'uprated' licence (and thus a faster car).

Would it make some of them drive illegally, i.e. without insurance, tax etc because they want to drive a car they cannot legally use?

Would it be used as an excuse to stop looking into other measures of road safety?


Bonuses:

Could well stop accidents where inexpirenced drivers are going too fast to control it (yes, I know they can in pretty much anything given the right conditions, but if they are limited to xx speed it's less likely to happen than at xxx speed).

Assuming they had proper ID, police would know right away if someone was driving too powerful a car.

*might* bring insurance down for younger people (ha).


I'm sure there is various other pluses and minuses.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Personally, I don't think that limiting a cars cc is going to stop young drivers pushing their car to the limit and even small engined cars can exceed 70MPH comfortably these days so it won't stop people leaving the road at 70MPH on a hairpin bend (not even with a speed camera there Greenshed).

Perhaps limiting them to driver only or accompanied by someone over a specific age, might discourage them from showing off in front of their friends, while still being able to take granny shopping. (wouldn't be much good for taking your girlfriend out for a drink and a few powerslides though) ...

Personally I think that after the initial test, they should take a further test after six months, to include skid pan training/testing, motorways and rural roads before they can carry young passengers.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

No, but it might stop some of the accidents where they were going above 70, and crashed because of it.



Isn't that pretty much what a provisional does now? And I really can't see the passanger one being enforced very well, sadly. Because you are right, a lot of it is just plain showing off.

Interestingly, my brother got a new car. A clio cup, 187 (I think, around that anyway).

Now I opposed this, as did my mother. It's quite frankly a stupid car for someone that age (18) and inexpirenced to have.

Luckily, the little muppet can't afford the insurance (we all told him he couldn't - did he listen, no he didn't) so it's currently sat there gathering dust. And blocked in just in case he decides to try his luck.

Should drivers his age and expirence really be allowed cars like that? I don't think so. It does around 130 odd, and I can't imagine the handling is wonderful either.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

How about getting rid of driving licenses?
A license is just someone taking away your freedom and selling it back to you.
Then we could get rid of whole government departments and save a lot of tax money.

_________________
Andrew.

pre second world war we didn't have driving licences or tests. After the war any one who wanted a licence applied for one without being tested.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

How would you ensure only those who have demonstrated a level of competence are allowed behind the wheel?
(granted the lack of a licence doesn't prevent anyone from doing so, but at least with today's system the great majority of drivers have shown the necessary competence)


I guess folk had much more pressing issues back then. I also suspect there were far fewer drivers to worry about too.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You get a certificate when you pass a driving test, right? What more dose a "license" prove?

_________________
Andrew.

You may have a point here. My memory is fuzzy on this (and things may have changed since I took my test): does one have to apply for a licence after gaining the appropriate certificates?
If so: why not integrate the licence and certificate - into a licence?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Compulsory driving tests were introduced in 1935. Testing was suspended "for the duration" and reintroduced in 1946

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Category.asp?cat=343

When my father was learning to drive in the '50s he was accompanied by a licence holding friend who could not actually drive.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Not forgetting the "provisional license", which you just pay for and get... Total unnecessary bureaucracy.

_________________
Andrew.

Very interesting.

My dad was born 1907 and was driving lorries before the war ( he would be early thirties then so probably never needed to be tested...he said he never was).

He told me that once the war was over anyone who could drive (when he started, if you had a car you had all you needed to drive) just asked for a licence and was given one.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

According to that link for about a year after the war the test remained suspended so that would be what he was referring to. My father always cursed that he hadn't had the sense to get one. But in those days he never thought that he would be able to afford a car.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

How could the handling in a race bred supermini with wheels at each corner be anything less than "wonderful" Okay, now onto something else. You do realise that in America that 16 year olds are put in charge of some 5 litre v8 muscle cars without anyone batting an eyelid. I wonder what you would make of that. The government in this country must CLAMP DOWN on insurance companies as it is legalised robbery. They should be obliged to provide reasonable insurance on any standard car. If a young driver can afford the initial cost of a relatively fast car then more power to them. I am angered by reasonable people being ripped off by insurance companies.

Also this idea is somewhat very silly. First off all, why are you gonna restrict engine size? What difference does that make? I have a modest 1.9 diesel which would lag behind the tiny 1.4 petrol car what I learnt in. Not that I agree with restricting power anyway, but if you wanted to, the suggested method would not be the way to do it.

I would put more but something annoying is happening when I am typing causing the scroll bar to flicker up and down.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

I have to agree that a "performance" car with adequate power , good handling and very good brakes, if it is driven sensibly, is far safer for any driver,( young or old) than an underpowered, wallowy suspensioned old banger that has only just crept through an MOT and wasn't that brilliant when it rolled off the dealers forecourt.

I must admit that when I passed my test, most youngsters then went on to drive morris1100/1300s, old Anglias, mark1 escorts, vauxhall vivas or old minis.(and a lot worse than those)

I do wonder what would happen on the roads today if the young had to drive those for their first few years of motoring. Most had drum brakes all round and the handling of a carboard box, not to mention a bhp of about 55-60 at most.

I honestly think that they are safer in modern cars with 80plus bhp, disc brakes, better handling and all that's before we start mentioning the "electronic" safety gadgets and air bags etc.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I suspect they feel safer, but is there the possibility that if you're driving a "safe" car, you will be more likely to take risks? Great for those inside the car, not so great for those around the car. I'm sure this isn't restricted to our younger drivers either!



Silly it may be, but this is the brainstorming area after all!
Maybe my OP wasn't clear, it wasn't necessarily about engine size, but about overall performance, similar criteria used by insurance companies to decide what group a car should be in (I think....)