Safe Speed Forums

I was talking to a gentleman at my local gym yesterday, who happens, I found out drive a motorcycle.

Now motorcyclists will know that one takes one's test on a low powered machine and after a certain level and various test are passed can then drive higher powered machines.

This set me thinking. We hear not so long ago that certain high powered cars e. Subaru Impreza & the Evo 6 just liketheir predecessors, the Ford Cosworth and RS Rurbo's are basically being driven by kids with little or no road craft. These kids have not long passed their driving test.

there was a point made recently that certain insurance companies have made these cars uninsurable - even to people of my age - i.e 41.

Would it not make sense to pass a law which says the following:

1. For 12 months after a test is passed only a vehicle of say 1100cc
can be driven - unmodified.

2 From 12 - 24 months after a test is passed anything up to 1800cc
can be driven unmodified

3 After 24 months any vehicle can be driven

4 Driving should also be put on the National Curriculum or "invent"
a GCSE in it - a sort of "pre-driving test"

What we have at present is a lot of the kids coming out of school these
days don't actually give a damn about anyone else - not all, just some.
These people seems to think that, how they look in front of their mates or their "Street-Cred" is far more important than being safe.

What a load of crap. The gang culture we have, which our kids seems to think is marvelous, guns, knives and that sort of behaviour is mainly down to the Black American Rap Artists preaching this crap.

Well done Jack Straw for not letting one of them into the country, due to his criminal record in America. Ok I digress slightly, but look how the kids behave now and look how they behaved years ago.

My first car was actually a Fiat 126. No I did not pass my test first time and yes i believe i am a better driver as a result. However I have been a victim of too many speed cameras too.

The Government might be right about education, education,education but what it fails to realise is that some kids today not all don't want to be educated and want to run amok in a high powered car with their mates.

Wake up Mr Brown and remove some of the dafter laws, you predecessor put in place and replace them with more useful ones. limiting the power of vehicle a new driver can drive is an excellent idea.

Speed does not necessarily kill, irresponsible driving does !


JW

_________________
John Wheatcroft

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS

There is little chance of the Government doing this. They want to discourage driving and reduce the number of people on the roads.

Regarding vehicle power and age limits, how would this be policed? I'm not sure I know how this works with motorcycles.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

John,

Welcome to Safespeed from another contributor!
I havent time to write a full post right now, but I see you are already in agreement with several of my own beliefs!
I hope you have time to contribute more!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

and yes to eveything you said!


As a motorcyclist myself I mentoned this very thing too although I have a feeling that many, or some, will retort with "a bad driver can still kill someone as easily in a Smart car as a Subaru" but I still think it's a good idea.

A Jockey doesn't start out on a race horse after all; well he does but you know what I mean.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Hello !!

Rather than a engine size rextriction I'd rather go for a power to weight ratio restriction on the basis that some small engine cars are tuned up to the maximum and can go like stink out performing a larger engined 'family' car rather than the 'turbo nutter' version.

But yes would broadly agree.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Well hello to you all and thanks for welcoming me. I think the insurance companies, together with the Police "make sure" that youngsters drivethe correctly powered motor vehicle as befits their road skills at that point in time.

Sure i driven fast ob occasion and been caught by a roadside camera. I once made it to the 12 point target and on appeal got my 6 month ban cut to 3 months on appeal. It cost me £1000 to do so.

Who says its not about money and not safety then now? - A better name for these infernal yellow boxes would be "Highway Tax Collectors", because thats all they are.

Watch many motorcyclists, again not all, and see generally how well they ride and I love bikes but cant afford one. Why are they safer, simple really they are narrower, harder to see and an average driver needs more time to see them, for example when pulling out of a junction.

I think the DfT should rate the power of a car to its drivers experience, plus the fact it is cheaper to tax an 1100cc vehicle than a 2000cc one, so there is also a bit of a green issue there too.

This to me seems like an obvious if only partial solution.

JW

_________________
John Wheatcroft

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS

In principle I agree that new drivers should be resticted to lower powered cars. Lets face it , even a 1.1 will do 100mph if you try. However there are people who will need to drive works cars or even farm tractors and vans. I believe you can drive a tractor at 15? Also deisels are not normaly avaiable les than 1.3l

Insurance companies price large engine cars out for most teanagers. However there are allways a few deaths each year where the teenager crashes dads fast sports saloon.

I might be tempted to introduce teenagers to cars EARLIER! before you add the complication of drink. teach therm to drive , then teach them not to drink drive.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

While this experience restriction appears attractive, it would pretty much be policed by exception in that the driving period appropriate to the car would only be checked after an accident and another charge added to the sheet of the miscreant. As the chance of being caught driving the "wrong" car is minimal, I think that people would ignore this restriction and take the risk.

To enforce this, the police would have to stop everyone, everywhere and ask to see their licences. Remember, driving experience is not visible to the naked eye.

Or would police delight in just randomly stopping high performance cars to see who is driving. A good bit of scope for prejudice there.

Is this really going to stop many accidents?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Power of the car has nothing to do with how its driven in my opinion.
Great example is the chav kid up the street who passed his test oh about 4 months ago.
Car being driven is a 1.2 corsa, basemodel and usual fare for a spotty yoof.
His problem is his attitude.
4 months of driving and he's squealing the tyres on the corner, wheelspinning up the road ( 4 up), constantly going into the bend at too high a speed resulting in an over the line drift and the usual hurried overcorrections that are typical of someone with no aptitude and the wrong attitude for driving a lethal weapon-full stop.
He occasionally gets to drive daddies zafira people carrier- in exactly the same manner.
And he's not alone, his mates all drive shitepiles and theyre driving to exactly thesame no brainer standards that he is.
Death is just a heartbeat away when you have these kinds of twats behind a wheel, any wheel.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

This is a good idea, surely if this idea and my engine restriction idea were put together, something workable would come out of it. Both are partial solutions which make a lot of sense.

I am sure engine manufacturers could produce diesels in capicities lest than 1.3L - its not that hard for goodness sake, but it looks like everyone manufacturers, insurance compaies, the Dft and the Government are all on a cash dash and don't really want to do anything about it at all.

there is a simple answer to this, ifthey took everyone off the road, by getting everyone out of their cars, no body would need to pay any road tax - which just like tobacco is a valuable source of income for the Government.

Think about it for a moment if you were making a hefty rake off each time a packet of fags were sold would you really in your heart of hearts want to jeopardise that income stream - no I thought not.

Same applies to road Tax, insurance, garage fees, mechanics, fuel - in fact anything car related. If it were taken to the n th degree these sytems would eventually collapse, with the resulting anarchy and a powerless Governent with no money to control it. We all know that Governments do NOT like things they can't control.

C'mon Gordy listen too what is being said here it'll do you the power of good, instead of the bureacratic bullshit your Dft keep spouting, just like the diarohea after a bad curry the night before !!

JW

_________________
John Wheatcroft

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS

Well this of course is very true we have all seen them, so short of surgical "Attitude Implant Modi9fiers" what do you suggest ?

Remember if the you next word is going to be "educate", how do you educate someone who does not really want to be educated.

I think electric wires attached to the testicles at the local nick might just work - provided the power came from a renewable source of course
(he said with tongue in cheek)

Do we consider these yoof's dangerous and therefore lock them up with all the other residavist reprobates, so they learn how not to get caught next time - Taking their vehicles off them might show them.

Alternatively we could educate them to be better drivers, the Derren Brown Way - see my car crash video on Youtube. What a great ad for speeding that would be. (computersolutions164)

Go take a look at it.

JW

_________________
John Wheatcroft

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS

Here's a start.

Add-on a no-after-2300z driving and a speed check function, and away you go !

I've been undecided on this. I mean, is it better to teach 'em to drive young and get it out of their system, or only let them see a car when they get older?

I really don't know. But maybe a period of "Parental control" ONLY licence AFTER a "Pass" may help. (After all, it's NOT like in my day when my father only held a drivers licence 35yrs after I did!)...

Maybe a "nominated Parent"(adult) of at least say 30 yrs old to accompany a new driver for the first 2 yrs may help? Or maybe only after dark?

I agree that limiting the power of the cars new drivers can drive is of limited value. You don't need a high powered car to drive irresponsibly, although there could be some element of irresponsible youngsters being attracted to high powered cars.
And this is the real issue, responsibility. Unfortunately there is no way to test this, and using age as a substitute will be unfair to responsible youngsters. And don't forget, some of the most irresponsible ones will take to the wheel without a licence or any tuition, and probably under the legal age too, so a change in the minimum age law will to little to deter such people.

I would suggest the following, but it won't deter the unclenced of course:

1. Young drivers allowed on the road supervised from quite an early age, say 15. But cannot take the test, and hence drive unsupervised until a more advanced age, eg 18. This would open up the possibility of a long period of supervised driving, during which they can gain a good deal of experience in a relatively safe environment. Perhaps introduce a compulsory drivers log book, which would need to show a minimum no of hours of supervied driving and professional tuition before the test could be taken (but not sure if this would work, such things can be forged).
2. The driving test to be two stage. Stage one is much as the current test, involving a theory and practical test. Once this has been passed, the driver would acquire a probationary licence. This would allow him/her to drive solo as well as under the supervision of another driver, but not to carry passengers who do not have a full licence. "P" plates mandatory on the vehicle. Motorway driving allowed under supervision only. Any serious motoring offence would result in reversion to a provisional licence (if not a driving ban for some period). I would not regard minor speeding offences as "serious", but any sort of reckless behaviour or breaking the rules for probationary drivers would normally mean loss of the licence.
3. Second stage test, minimum age say 21, and at least a year on a probationary licence. Driver would need to pass a repeat theory test, and demonstrate "advanced" techiques such as good observation, hazard awareness and anticipation as well as car control (to a higher standard than the stage 1 test) and legal compliance. This test should include motorway driving, night driving, and driving in adverse weather conditions (perhaps using a simulator). Passing the test entitles the driver to a full licence.

Driving without a valid licence to carry an automatic custodial sentence.

And of course we would need adequate police patrols to enforce all of this.

Such an opportunity does exist. It's really up to local education authorities to implement such a qualification. Check this link.

http://www.rewardinglearning.com/cceaco ... -motor.pdf

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

The is just reposting stuff I've mentioned already. Most other forms of transport require higher levels of training to get bigger and more powerful vehicles. I think we all should have to apply for "bigger" cars. The amount of times you see someone driving a huge car - and struggling to park it or get in and out of a multistorey cp is frightening. Shouldnt just be the young this apply's too.

Recently I hired a 9 seater mercedes minivan. I was huge - and for anyone used to driving a "fiesta" sized car, a huge and difficult new "experience". Luckily I've driven big motors in the past - and had the luck to learn in a large car - rather than the mini's they use these days.

In this country the usual car for driving schools is the little peug,fiats,renaults, - the biggest your likely to see is a "bmw mini" !!!
In holland the driving schools use Merc E classes for goodness sake!! Why do we in this country insist on training new drivers on the smallest car - then allow them to go and take out a "people" carrier the next day with 7 up. Madness - no matter how old your are when you pass your test.

Just as a comment on younger driver - I'm an experienced driver and I've seen a lot of different drivers and styles. In my experience its very rarely the "kidz" that hassle me or others I know on the road.

There is a trend building in my mind - and that is middle aged "ego" drivers - much busier than anyone else - and god forbid anyone make them late for a meeting or a night at the boozer.

The other trend is woman drivers - normally with kids in the car. The agression that some of these women drive with is mind numbing - given they have their babies or someones elses babies on board.

Yes kidz do have moments - the show off - the speeder - the loss of "concentration" - the misjudgment etc. These are all "familiar" things that if we are all "really" honest we do ourselves!!! But most who post hear would swear they "dont" and are "above" this... Frankly I dont think so. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES! and as a wise man said "your only as good as your last Accident".

So overall we all need to improve - we all need to be more considerate - we all need to be a bit more skilled. We all need to be tested every few years - how many we'd need to define better - but overall I'd say that would help more than whats been proposed in this post and others. But of course we hit peoples "i can drive perfectly egos" again :)

Until then its another case of the establishment targetting the easy options.

Oh yes - we catch wee Johnny or Mary in their mum or dads car - and then they have to resit their driving test again - but shame on the establishment - we've forgot that they are human and make mistakes... In the background though the local ned/chav floats past with his uninsured,untaxed, unlicenced, mot'less swagger... I know because it happens round here and in other places where friends and family live.

We sometimes dont see the good kids do - when the ensure they are insured, taxed, mot'd and have actually passed their test themselves - we're all too keen to wash that down the nearest toilet - to appease the bleaters and the establishments need to "show they are doing things".

Turn it around - chase the ego's, the agressives, chav's and ned's who regularly flout the system first - these people have chosen to avoid the law - not just make a mistake - and on the hole are much more likely to cause you or me grief on the road.....

If you think that I'm bleating - then get this one - who are the worst speeders locally - 30-35 mummy's picking their kids up from school. Most regularly get out of the road our local school is on and put the foot down and break the speed limit... If these people cant get it right - then why the heck should we pick on the kidz alone!?

Perhaps then driver training needs to involve a number of different vehicle types spanning the range of vehicles that the driver will be qualified to drive. But no, I don't think that this is a priority, the principles of safe driving are the same no matter what size the vehicle. I drive a number of different vehicles, from a Fiat Panda up to a motor caravan, and my company's Ford Ranger, and have no problem adapting to the different characteristics of the vehicles. I have never seen any statistics relating to accident frequency against vehicle size - do any exist - I'm sure they would be interesting reading. I'm willing to be proved wrong. but I suspect that vehicle size makes very little difference.




They are cheap to run and easy to drive and repair. Two good reasons to choose them to train new drivers.




I don't think you can stereotype drivers in that way. There are good and bad drivers, of all ages and both sexes.





But what is your priority? ISTM that you are trying to excuse bad driving. It IS possible to drive defensively, which very much reduces the probability that you will be involved in an accident. Of course, nothing is guaranteed. And yes we all make mistakes. The important thing is to admit to them, learn from them and try to avoid repeating them in the future. This culture needs to be instilled in all drivers.



Probably more like young Jack or Chloe these days. But yes, illegal drivers are a problem, and perhaps the legal system need to make an example of them when caught,instead of teating them with kid gloves.





How many accidents have there been there? I don't know your road, but the important thing is only whether thay can stop in the distance that is clear. If they can, there is no problem. The speed limit is irrelevant. But again you are stereotyping.

Congratulations on responding MRTD. I would have replied in much the same vein.

I read Peegee's post and my first thought was to post a response saying "Could you be more concise and make your points more clearly as I lost the will to live reading your post."

Still, at least it didn't have masses of emoticons.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I learned to drive unsupervised in an Austin Maxi on private land, and my first experience on the road was driving (supervised!) a Transit Van.
After that, jumping into the driving school's Fiesta was easy - reverse parking, when you could actually SEE out the back was a real novelty.

Perhaps testing drivers in such a vehicle would show up any shortcomings in their teaching or skills?
To protect members of the public, I think it only fair to do this on a test track - which would enable testing on a much higher level, and a more even standard - learning to drive in Kendal has to be a different experience to learning in London, yet qualified drivers get given the same license!

(The emoticon was for you Malcolm! )

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Good idea !

_________________
John Wheatcroft

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS