Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 30, 2020 05:42

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:36
Posts: 113
Location: Lincolnshire
(Hopefully without making driving more stressful and not spending lots of money)

1. Make the age for getting a licence for a motorcycle and a car the same.
2. Only allow people under 21 to have cars under 1000cc.
3. Anyone under 21 not permitted to carry passengers under the age 25.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 13:08
Posts: 16
How would restricting young drivers to 1000cc vehicles reduce RTA casualties.
A 1000cc engined car could easily be driven in excess of the NSL.
Don't you realise that most accidents happen at speeds below the limit.
Will a small, underpowered, poorly-accelerating car improve the driver's ability to drive safely ?
Will it help him/her to safely negotiate a junction ?

Besides the above, will there be a restriction of the weight of the car in order to further lower the performance ?
I'm afraid this idea is a non-starter.
Experience does not necessarily improve a driver's skill/safety on the road.
Witness the numpties that drive everywhere at 45mph.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 17:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
gpmgroup wrote:
2. Only allow people under 21 to have cars under 1000cc.


Do you mean everyone over 21 has to have a car bigger than 1000cc? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 19:04 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
gpmgroup wrote:
(Hopefully without making driving more stressful and not spending lots of money)

1. Make the age for getting a licence for a motorcycle and a car the same.

I thought it was. You are only allowed to ride a low-powered moped at 16.

Quote:
2. Only allow people under 21 to have cars under 1000cc.

Indeed, can't have 'em burning up the roads in Kas and CityRovers, can we?

Quote:
3. Anyone under 21 not permitted to carry passengers under the age 25.

Not even their own spouse and children?

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 23:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 05:18
Posts: 47
Location: New Zealand
In the interests of promoting actual thought about safety (and most other problems), no proposals should be entertained that involve more restrictive laws than we already have.

When it is already abundantly clear that the most draconian legal solutions have already failed, why on earth propose more?

_________________
Alan Wilkinson (at http://www.fastandsafe.org)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 23:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 01:47
Posts: 379
Location: Cumbria / Oxford
gpmgroup wrote:
(Hopefully without making driving more stressful and not spending lots of money)


I think finding myself limited to a 1000cc car after driving for 3 years would be quite stressful, as would being banned from giving my peers a lift. As it is I drive a 1.2 at the moment and even that is underpowered. Cars with engines <= 1000cc tend to be smaller and lighter to compensate, so in the event of an accident you'd probably have less protection.

And how would you enforce this? Have the police stop everyone who looked 'young' and was driving a car with a large engine? So then it would become necessary to carry proof of age at all times.

It seems to me you're very naively attributing all dangers on the road to young drivers. Whilst it's true to say that in general we're at greater risk than older drivers, I don't think it's fair to impose arbitrary limits of this sort - especially without research being undertaken into whether it would actually make the roads safer.

I'm sure you wouldn't have been in favour of a policy like this when you were under 21 (or even under 25).

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 23:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
alanw wrote:
In the interests of promoting actual thought about safety (and most other problems), no proposals should be entertained that involve more restrictive laws than we already have.

When it is already abundantly clear that the most draconian legal solutions have already failed, why on earth propose more?

Amen to that! Lets have more carrots and fewer sticks!

Incentivised training, focussed on improving driver attitudes has to be the most effective way forward.

We've already seen no end of half-baked restrictive schemes targeted at motorcyclists, limiting the machinary that can be ridden and making training (of questionable quality) compulsory. Result: rocketing motorcycling fatalities.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 00:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Hmm, would something as simple as a restriction on engine size actually do much? I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before ultra lightweight cars with highly tuned 999cc engines appear, and we'd be back where we started. You can already go pretty quick in a Brabus Smart Roadster, and that's got a ickle wickle 700cc 3 pot. Oh, and a turbo. And it weighs about half what a normal car does. See? Okay, probably not that cheap, but you can be sure a few younger drivers would end up in something like it.
Surely it's better to train newer drivers to control normal cars properly. That said, I wouldn't mind a power:weight ratio limit just restrictive enough to stop new drivers with rich parents using a 911 or something. I'm told by my Aussie mates that they have a 3.5 litre per tonne restriction for probationers (less than 3 years on the road), but even then if a family has only one car and it's bigger than that the restriction is waived. Frankly I can't imagine how it's enforced without lots of random stopchecks anyway.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 14:16
Posts: 109
gpmgroup wrote:
(Hopefully without making driving more stressful and not spending lots of money)

1. Make the age for getting a licence for a motorcycle and a car the same.
2. Only allow people under 21 to have cars under 1000cc.
3. Anyone under 21 not permitted to carry passengers under the age 25.


Great stuff. Could you please provide us with your evidence to show that this action will indeed "significantly reduce road casualties"?

Naturally you will have this to hand as you would surely not just slap down a few ill-conceived lines of text and wait for the casualties to plummet. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:36
Posts: 113
Location: Lincolnshire
Wow! thanks for all the replies guys :D

One thing I’ve learnt very quickly is I need to be more exact in defining the statements. [Thanks, :wink: Homer especially ]

Quote:
Peter E wrote:
I thought it was. You are only allowed to ride a low-powered moped at 16.


The point is allowing youngsters the freedom of a motorised 2 wheel machine a year before a 4 wheel machine is madness given the fact that they are far more vulnerable. Ask most parents, especially the mothers, they would much rather their offspring save up and wait for a car.

Either the car driving age should be brought down to 16 or the moped / 50cc motorcycle age should be raised to 17.

Quote:
Alanw wrote:
In the interests of promoting actual thought about safety (and most other problems), no proposals should be entertained that involve more restrictive laws than we already have.

When it is already abundantly clear that the most draconian legal solutions have already failed, why on earth propose more?


It would not introduce anymore rules! Just manipulate the existing ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 13:08
Posts: 16
I'm glad that you have taken all the (constructive) criticism in good humour.
Your ideas were not dismissed without thought.
Have another think and come back with some more for discussion. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 18:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
gpmgroup wrote:
The point is allowing youngsters the freedom of a motorised 2 wheel machine a year before a 4 wheel machine is madness given the fact that they are far more vulnerable. Ask most parents, especially the mothers, they would much rather their offspring save up and wait for a car.

Either the car driving age should be brought down to 16 or the moped / 50cc motorcycle age should be raised to 17.


By that logic you wouldn't let a 15yr old cycle or walk either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 21:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:36
Posts: 113
Location: Lincolnshire
Homer wrote:

Quote:
By that logic you wouldn't let a 15yr old cycle or walk either.


Wrong :lol: - very wrong :lol: that logic does not follow in anyway.

It is not a restriction of choice or a restriction of actions - it is use of the system to give the safer option equal weight at the time of decision making.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 00:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 22:06
Posts: 40
A thought regarding kids on mopeds...

Current Government transport policy would appear to be to make driving a car, any car, a fundamentally unpleasant experience. This, coupled with crippling insurance costs for young drivers is almost FORCING them onto two wheels. Let's face it, they wouldn't be seen dead on a bus! Another comment would be that our current credit card and loan culture is allowing / encouraging people to splash out money they can't afford on high(er) performance cars they don't have a clue how to drive. Only a theory, but I know I couldn't afford anything as fast as a Subaru Impreza Turbo when I was 17!

I've been beaten to it, but I'd agree that maybe some sort of power to weight ratio scale could be used in tandem with advanced tests to enable people to gradually improve their driving skills? More carrot, less stick. Stop telling us you know what's best and encourage us to do it for ourselves! Couple that with insurance incentives and maybe we'd see some results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 09:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 05:18
Posts: 47
Location: New Zealand
gpmgroup wrote
Quote:
It would not introduce anymore rules! Just manipulate the existing ones.

Quibbling and irrelevant. Don't make them more restrictive was what I said. That would force a) research, b) thought. Both are useful.

_________________
Alan Wilkinson (at http://www.fastandsafe.org)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 21:12 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
gpmgroup wrote:
Homer wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
The point is allowing youngsters the freedom of a motorised 2 wheel machine a year before a 4 wheel machine is madness given the fact that they are far more vulnerable.

By that logic you wouldn't let a 15yr old cycle or walk either.


Wrong :lol: - very wrong :lol: that logic does not follow in anyway.



The logic follows perfectly.

They are more vulnerable no matter what form of transport they use.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:56 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 13:41
Posts: 539
Location: Herts
1, Include the Motorway as part of the test.

2, Prosecute every driver that causes an accident, no matter how minor.

3, Police the roads.

_________________
Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 16:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
bmwk12 wrote:
1, Include the Motorway as part of the test.

As motorways are, relatively speaking, our safest roads, that would overall make little difference. Also a bit of a bugger if you live in Stornoway.

Quote:
2, Prosecute every driver that causes an accident, no matter how minor.

Yes, that would deter all those people who deliberately set out to cause accidents.

In my view one of the most effective ways of improving safety would be to recognise that punishing people who make mistakes is not the best way of doing it. If we had taken the view that the main cause of air and rail accidents was reckless pilots and train drivers, we would have vastly more air and rail casualties. That is not to say people shouldn't be punished for reckless behaviour - but the deterrent effect is very weak as people do not deliberately cause crashes.

Quote:
3, Police the roads.

Agree on that 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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 01:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 22:46
Posts: 12
Location: West Midlands
A couple of thoughts on this subject............

Maybe drivers should be subjected to psychometric testing to ensure that they have the correct mental attitute before they are allowed behind the wheel.

Sorry if I sound pessimistic but we will not stop the hardcore of idiots by introducing any legislation as they will always find access to driving either through borrowing, stealing, or buying vehicles and driving untrained and uninsured.

A 1000 cc car is more than capable of killing or maiming if used badly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 04:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Ric wrote:
Maybe drivers should be subjected to psychometric testing to ensure that they have the correct mental attitute before they are allowed behind the wheel.


Another fundamental problem with this most sensible idea is that folk could learn to pass the test without changing their true attitudes.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.085s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]