Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Nov 18, 2025 18:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 08:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
BBC.co.uk wrote:
Driving age 'must increase to 18'

The minimum driving age must be raised from 17 to 18 to stop young people "killing themselves and others", MPs have said.
The Commons transport committee also wants learner drivers to spread lessons over a year before taking the test and a complete alcohol ban for new drivers.

Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night, the report adds.

The government said it would not rule out adopting the proposals.

Young driver safety was already a priority, it added.

Government figures show that one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25, although this group accounts for just one in eight licence-holders.

In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20. By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2.

'Self-confidence'

Under the proposed changes, people could start learning to drive at 17, as is currently the case, but not take the test until they are 18.

The committee's report - Novice Drivers - says there should also be an "absolute minimum" number of hours of tuition and a "structured syllabus", rather than instructors cramming knowledge into students ahead of the test.

Training must also tackle "inflated self-confidence" by promoting "awareness of one's limitations in real driving situations".

Meanwhile, "hazard perception training", sometimes using computer simulators, should be extended, possibly to schools, to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be.

Transport committee chairman Gwyneth Dunwoody, Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, said: "The time has come for a revolutionary change."

She added: "I think some males would like to drive at 11. But the reality is that we aren't talking about people having the odd crunch... but about people killing themselves and killing others.

"The other side is a rise in the number of young people killing young people in the same car."

Curfew

The committee is calling for a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test.

This group should also be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am, it adds.

Mrs Dunwoody said: "We cannot continue to waste young lives. The implementation of the measures in this report would go a long way to improve the safety of young and novice drivers and other road users."

Louise Ellman, a Labour member of the committee, said the proposals were about saving lives.

She added: "If we look at what's happened on the roads, road casualties are actually going down, except for that group of young new drivers where casualty rates are actually going up."

A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: "Young and novice drivers remain a key priority for DfT, and that is why last February we announced a fundamental overhaul of driver training and testing.

"We are already targeting younger drivers more closely with our educational campaigns and will consult on the detail of proposals to overhaul training and testing later in the year.

"At this stage no measures have been ruled either in or out."

What do you think of the proposals? Will they improve safety standards? Are you a newly qualified driver? Send us your comments using the form below.


"Government figures show that one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25, although this group accounts for just one in eight licence-holders. "

I wonder what this split is between those who gained a license (after taking tuition and making the effort to pass their test) and those who didn't? :scratchchin:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 09:17 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
I listened to a discussion of this on the radio last night. As these things go, the proposals from the MPs sound quite reasonable, especially when contrasted with the ideas of listeners, which were 100% about revenge against young people as a whole, getting them off the road, and tarnishing all young drivers whether good or bad. I really don't think that is the way to go.

There was also a very disturbing comment from a teenager who said something like, "it's like climbing trees, you can't have any idea of the risk until you've crashed a few times." :o That is the kind of attitude we need to be changing.

I do think we need more positive ideas. I think we need to make it clearer to new drivers that they are starting below the level and status of experienced drivers, but that through responsible driving and hard work they will be welcomed into the club. I think it would also be better to stress that that initial lower status is a natural fact, rather than a chosen policy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 09:25 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ ... tice42.cfm
Quote:
42. We asked the Department for Transport to provide its assessment of the economic and social costs that would be associated with a 12-month minimum learning period which would in effect raise the solo driving age to 18 years. Despite stating in its original memorandum that: "It would have a significant adverse impact"; the Department subsequently told us that actual cost assessments had yet to be undertaken.[66] The Department did, however, provide data to show the percentage of 17 year-olds taking part in its the Cohort Study who drive to and from a place of work or study, which show that 68.1% of the sample do so on at least four days a week. The research does not provide information about alternative forms of transport available for these journeys.[67]



So that is 68.1% who would be significantly dis-advantaged

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 09:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
anton wrote:
So that is 68.1% who would be significantly dis-advantaged

And how many of them would switch to mopeds which mile for mile are much more dangerous than cars?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 09:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night,

Apart from the obvious difficulties in enforcing this, why should people over 20 be exempted? Will they automatically survive any crash?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
malcolmw wrote:
Quote:
Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night,

Apart from the obvious difficulties in enforcing this, why should people over 20 be exempted? Will they automatically survive any crash?


And what happens when they have passengers and it's nearly 'late at night'. Will they race home to beat the curfew?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:17 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 20:14
Posts: 252
Location: Hampshire
and so they buy a motorbike instead and what does that do to their chances of death?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
This is really really disappointing to hear, as someone who is 21, and still considered to be in the most dangerous age group it's very frustrating to see things being generalised so broadly. The BBC story says these are some MP proposals

* people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18

- Why is this? I took 8 lessons and drove to and from school with my dad in the car for 2 months before I was ready. That's all it took though, 2 months. Why should people be forced to pay out for driving lessons until they are 18?

* drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus

- Minimum number of lessons? Some people are just naturally better at driving than others. Some people need just 5-10 lessons, others need 40 before they can be considered for driving test. Saying "Everyone needs 25 lessons" or something, will mean those who would before take 40 suddenly think 25 is all they need.

* extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be

- Hazard perception on a computer is bollocks. Let's think about it - according to the governments OWN figures, drivers over 25 are better. None of these relied upon computer simulations to gain skills. Drivers UNDER 21 are the worse. The computer simulator was brought in in May 2003 was it? Something like that. So all the WORST drivers in the country, used the computer simulator to learn to judge hazards. How do they figure that this is a sensible proposal?!?!?

* a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test

- Nothing to disagree with this... though alcohol has differing effects on everyone, it can be genuinely accepted that people are less able under the influence of alcohol and so driving + drinking should never be mixed, not just for the drivers of less than 1 year.

* banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test

I think the ridiculousness of this 'limit' has already been covered enough!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
mmltonge wrote:
* a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test

- Nothing to disagree with this... though alcohol has differing effects on everyone, it can be genuinely accepted that people are less able under the influence of alcohol and so driving + drinking should never be mixed, not just for the drivers of less than 1 year.

You do realise that this means that you could not drink ANY alcohol at ANY TIME for a year after passing your test. A zero limit is plain daft as you would still have trace alcohol several days after a drink.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
I did not realise this. I don't drink at all due to liver condition.

I would say no drink 12 hours before driving... people have sobered up by then even if they do have traces.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
mmltonge wrote:
I would say no drink 12 hours before driving... people have sobered up by then even if they do have traces.

But you can easily be over the current limit 12 hours after finishing drinking after consuming quantities that are commonplace on Friday nights in any town in Britain. Time limits alone are meaningless as they take no account of the amount consumed.

Even near-prohibitionist Sweden has a 20 mg limit, not a zero one.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
OK - Then you understand what I'm getting at though anyway, it's jut my lack of alcohol knowledge, being a non-drinker, which is restraining me from putting my thoughts across in a reasonable manner - and yes, I accept this is a common problem, people speaking before knowing enough so I apologise for that in this instance.

A low limit, which doesn't allow for much trace at all but gives enough margin for error on drinking over 12-16 hours ago etc


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 15:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
The curfew idea is a very poor idea, as Paul points out one of the potential pifalls.

The passenger limit is something I've advocated for a while, but it should apply at all times - is 10.30 pm on an icy night ok, but 11pm is dangerous ?

What about this one, youngster driving home with 10 year old little brother. Should have been home about 9.00pm but accident on motorway delays them, still driving on Mway at 10.59.59 - must now pull onto hardshoulder, abandon little brother on the Mway and drive off into the night - well done MP's, another brilliant idea, NOT :evil:

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 15:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
PeterE wrote:
mmltonge wrote:
I would say no drink 12 hours before driving... people have sobered up by then even if they do have traces.

But you can easily be over the current limit 12 hours after finishing drinking after consuming quantities that are commonplace on Friday nights in any town in Britain. Time limits alone are meaningless as they take no account of the amount consumed.

Even near-prohibitionist Sweden has a 20 mg limit, not a zero one.


I totally agree and have made this point myself in the past. On the Radio 5 interview Louise Ellman seemed very knowledgable of this issue too and made it clear that 'zero' would allow for residual alcohol, and would only mean a practical limit of zero drinks.

I do feel somewhat optimistic that this group is at least looking at the right sorts of problems, and did not mention speed limiters, speed kills, or cameras at all, and seemed very aware that the real problem is one of driver attitude. Even if their ideas need some practical tweaking I feel we should give them some credit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 15:42 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Quote:
The passenger limit is something I've advocated for a while, but it should apply at all times - is 10.30 pm on an icy night ok, but 11pm is dangerous ?


I find driving at 10:45 is ok but the nutters roll out the pub at 11pm.
It all gets a step more frantic around town at 11pm

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 19:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Numerical limits are stupid. They don't solve anything, they just allow easy prosecution.

Anyone should be able to drive as soon as they are ready. Obviously there needs to be a definition of "ready" but numbers shouldn't come into it.

If they are saying you shouldn't carry passengers because they are a significant distraction then they should say that. Don't put silly numbers on it.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 22:31 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 22:14
Posts: 6
TC001 wrote:
and so they buy a motorbike instead and what does that do to their chances of death?


but if they survive they'll be better car drivers

an american view is surely the way to go educating at an early age through the school system or an extention of this private facility

http://www.under17-carclub.co.uk/

of which both my elder two are members

_________________
A WISE MAN SAID



NOTHING


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 22:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:31
Posts: 407
Location: A Safe Distance From Others
Quote:
I do feel somewhat optimistic that this group is at least looking at the right sorts of problems, and did not mention speed limiters, speed kills, or cameras at all, and seemed very aware that the real problem is one of driver attitude. Even if their ideas need some practical tweaking I feel we should give them some credit.


:yesyes:

Can't recall where I heard it, but one of the govt spokespersons was on the radio today and suggested that the current driving test merely judges the testee on his / her ability to operate the controls of the car; it's doesn't question the candidates driving skills.

Surely the better way to improved road safety is better driver training at inception?

_________________
Simon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 00:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I think more realistic simulators could be an answer. Something more akin to an aircraft simulator. Obviously these would be more expensive and therefore there wouldn't be that many of them around the country and they'd be grossly over-subscribed. This might have the effect of raising the driving age as it would take so long to get on one. I'd be keen to know how good a simulator one could get for a particular sum. It strikes me that car control isn't that big a problem among young drivers compared to observation, and anticipation skills. Maybe a much simpler sort of simulator could be devised that focussed mainly on these areas?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 01:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I don't really get the zero alcohol limit. 80mg is 80mg just enforce it.

curfews are a little bit stalinist but i can see where thy are going with it.

I would be minded to agree with the passenger embargo if peer pressure is the issue then remove the peers.

I still think a more rigorous test with maybe a compulsory retest at test +12 months?

but they are begining to look at the right things albeit in a bit of a dailymailish way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.087s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]