Raise the age of driving to 18

[Flat.tyres]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_Driving_age

there are suggestions that the minimum age for driving may becaome 18 and drivers should have to undergo more rigerous tests and restrictions.

while I think this is a good idea, I think that the figures are misleading.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6247732.stm

looking at this related story, we find that 25% of driver deaths are under 25 meaning that 75% are 26 and over.

isn't it more likely that inexperienced drivers will make more mistakes and while I agree with the proposals, it will always remain the case?

I would suggest restricting drivers with less than 3 years driving experience to a maximum litreage of 1.1 and power of 50 hp to slow the little buggers down. we also need to have a insurance scheme that young drivers can afford because £1000 for a baby car is taking the piss and encouraging them to drive without it.

[ShiftingGears]

16 is good.

[Alfa Fan]

The idea of limiting people with less than 3 years driving experience to cars upto 1.1 litres is stupid! Some of us need more powerful cars to tow equipment/etc that a 1.1 Micra/Corsa/etc just wouldn't manage. Maybe a more sensible limit of 1.8 & 150 bhp or similar would be appropriate?

[BDunnell]

The idea of limiting people with less than 3 years driving experience to cars upto 1.1 litres is stupid! Some of us need more powerful cars to tow equipment/etc that a 1.1 Micra/Corsa/etc just wouldn't manage. Maybe a more sensible limit of 1.8 & 150 bhp or similar would be appropriate?

I don't see how that would make the slightest bit of difference, to be honest, unlike the 1.1-litre limit. By the way, I'm not saying that I agree with that idea, just making a point.

What needs to happen is that young drivers need to realise that there is no need to 'show off'. Quite how this can be made to happen, I don't know. I suspect that young drivers will always be a problem to some extent for this very reason. After all, there are lots of things that you naturally get out of your system as you mature. Luckily, the vast majority of young drivers are perfectly sensible.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Young drivers are already restricted to small engined cars because they can't afford to be insured on anything bigger.

Personally I think that driving lessons should be cheaper but you should have more of them. Because they are so expensive, it encourages people to have as few as possible.

The driving test should also be changed. They should be more specific and consistent over what is a the difference between a minor fault and serious fault, whilst implementing night driving and motorway driving on the test. Some kind of personality test should be involved as well.

But on a slightly different note I don't see where the issue really is. Why is our government so anti-driving and why does the media make us feel like our roads are so dangerous.

THE FACT IS, OUR ROADS ARE PROBABLY THE SAFEST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD!!!!

http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

Road fatalities per 100,000 population

France 14.4
Italy 11
Germany 9.5
UK 5.9



Motorways — Deaths per billion vehicle-km.

Italy 12.8
France 5.4
Germany 4.5
UK 2 (thats right,2!!)



Motorway usage
(Average daily vehicle flow)

UK 64,900
Germany 45,800
France 29,400
Italy 26,000



A-class roads — deaths per billion vehicle-km

France 20.6
Germany 19.5
United Kingdom 6.2



A-class roads usage

UK 17,200
France 10,100
Germany 9,500

[Daniel]

Young drivers are already restricted to small engined cars because they can't afford to be insured on anything bigger.

Personally I think that driving lessons should be cheaper but you should have more of them. Because they are so expensive, it encourages people to have as few as possible.

The driving test should also be changed. They should be more specific and consistent over what is a the difference between a minor fault and serious fault, whilst implementing night driving and motorway driving on the test. Some kind of personality test should be involved as well.

But on a slightly different note I don't see where the issue really is. Why is our government so anti-driving and why does the media make us feel like our roads are so dangerous.

THE FACT IS, OUR ROADS ARE PROBABLY THE SAFEST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD!!!!

http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

Road fatalities per 100,000 population

France 14.4
Italy 11
Germany 9.5
UK 5.9



Motorways — Deaths per billion vehicle-km.

Italy 12.8
France 5.4
Germany 4.5
UK 2 (thats right,2!!)



Motorway usage
(Average daily vehicle flow)

UK 64,900
Germany 45,800
France 29,400
Italy 26,000



A-class roads — deaths per billion vehicle-km

France 20.6
Germany 19.5
United Kingdom 6.2



A-class roads usage

UK 17,200
France 10,100
Germany 9,500
I agree :) Something needs to be done about people's attitudes because 2 deaths per billion vehicle km is 2 too many so to speak but I think you won't get the road toll down much further though.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I agree :) Something needs to be done about people's attitudes because 2 deaths per billion vehicle km is 2 too many so to speak but I think you won't get the road toll down much further though.

Checking for sarcasm................... :confused:

Is he mocking me :erm: .................................... ................................. .................................... processing .................................................. .. .................................................. ....

[Flat.tyres]

The idea of limiting people with less than 3 years driving experience to cars upto 1.1 litres is stupid! Some of us need more powerful cars to tow equipment/etc that a 1.1 Micra/Corsa/etc just wouldn't manage. Maybe a more sensible limit of 1.8 & 150 bhp or similar would be appropriate?

what the hell are you towing :s hock:

a 1.1 car will do 90mph and tow a small trailer.

are you telling me that theres a growing trend among the 17 to 20 year old population for corderys, knitted jumpers and a overwhelming desire to join the caravan club?

well I never ;)

[Flat.tyres]

Alfafan on his Hols

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAfZ1N56qjY

:laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

what the hell are you towing :s hock:

a 1.1 car will do 90mph and tow a small trailer.

are you telling me that theres a growing trend among the 17 to 20 year old population for corderys, knitted jumpers and a overwhelming desire to join the caravan club?

well I never ;)

What about my brother for example. He is a farmer and every week needs to take trailer of animals (weighing over 3 tonnes) to the auction.

He needs a decent sized engine in is car to do his job!! He can't use a 1litre Nova. :mad:

[BDunnell]

The driving test should also be changed. They should be more specific and consistent over what is a the difference between a minor fault and serious fault, whilst implementing night driving and motorway driving on the test.

Implementing a motorway test would be rather difficult for the many people who live nowhere near a motorway.

By the way, I don't see this or any government as being 'anti-driving' — just trying to deal with the very real problems that can be caused. Taking the Jeremy Clarkson view that 'they all hate us' doesn't get anybody anywhere; it just means a lot of heads get stuck in the sand. Some of the attempts to deal with problems are misguided, and some of the problems aren't even problems, but this is unavoidable.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Implementing a motorway test would be rather difficult for the many people who live nowhere near a motorway
.

Simple solution to that. If you haven't passed the motorway test, your license doesn't cover motorway driving.


But anyway I fail to see your point!
There are people who live miles away from towns, but they still have to drive to one to do their test :confused:

[janneppi]

THE FACT IS, OUR ROADS ARE PROBABLY THE SAFEST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD!!!!


Almost safest by 2005 numbers. :)

http://www.erf.be/images/stat/2007/2007_chap7.pdf

For example It shows that for UK there were
764 deaths (ages 18-25)
1208 deaths (ages 26-50)

[Dave B]

Restricting engine size on its own is useless, there's plenty of small cars with little engines which are extremely rapid.

I don't believe in more restrictions, they penalise those who are capable of driving sensibly. Attitudes need to change, there's too many teenagers who believe they're invincible behind the wheel.

[Daniel]

Restricting engine size on its own is useless, there's plenty of small cars with little engines which are extremely rapid.

I don't believe in more restrictions, they penalise those who are capable of driving sensibly. Attitudes need to change, there's too many teenagers who believe they're invincible behind the wheel.
Ye olde spike on the steering wheel idea would work :)

[MadCat]

With regards to some sort of motorway test that is what 'Pass Plus' does. By doing that you gain experience in motorway driving and other things. It also takes a chunk out of your insurance fee if you can prove you've done this.

I dont think raising the age to 18 is a good thing. Mainly because no matter how long you delay the age to start driving, they'll still be as inexperienced as they were at 17. The thing which I benefitted from was having the opportunity to have a pre-driving course at school which involved driving around the play ground learning clutch control and the correct procedures which need implementing during lessons and test. This also involved a number of theory lessons which showed the impacts of speed and idiocy.

[Iain]

Simple solution to that. If you haven't passed the motorway test, your license doesn't cover motorway driving.

How will the police check who isn't allowed to do motorway driving? They couldn't exactly stop every car at a checkpoint to see their licence could they? Perhaps they could fit the cars with a sensor and if it's on a sliproad for a motorway when the driver isn't qualified to be there, make some spikes pop out of the road..............

Raising the age won't make a blind bit of difference. Cars are so cheap to get hold of these days and I reckon a high percentage of the young idiots haring around towns and villages don't even have a licence.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

How will the police check who isn't allowed to do motorway driving? They couldn't exactly stop every car at a checkpoint to see their licence could they? Perhaps they could fit the cars with a sensor and if it's on a sliproad for a motorway when the driver isn't qualified to be there, make some spikes pop out of the road..............
.

Simple solution to that, why not use the green 'P' plates for people who have passed their test but haven't passed the motorway segment. ;)

[Erki]

Around here, people can obtain driving license at the age of 16 - but then until they are 18 and have re-taken the test, they can only drive with someone who has had the license for 2+ years sitting besides them. Hasn't made Estonian road traffic any less dangerous though.

[Daniel]

Simple solution to that, why not use the green 'P' plates for people who have passed their test but haven't passed the motorway segment. ;)
People just won't wear their P plates then....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

People just won't wear their P plates then....

Paint them on :mad:

The same could be said about 'L' plates today.

[BDunnell]

Simple solution to that, why not use the green 'P' plates for people who have passed their test but haven't passed the motorway segment. ;)

One word, to which Iain alluded: enforcement?

[nicemms]

I don't think raising the driving age to 16 will make a difference. What I think would make a diiference is having to be on a provsional liscence for 6-12months before taking your test and having lessons with an approved instructor so they can be sure the learner in question is safe on the road.

[Iain]

Maybe, but then again, everyone is different. Some people are naturals and can pass within a month or so. Others take a long time.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't think raising the driving age to 16 will make a difference.

:erm:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe, but then again, everyone is different. Some people are naturals and can pass within a month or so. Others take a long time.

I'm not so sure on that. I have a mate how 'fluked' his driving test after a few months and now thinks he's the best driver in the world and knows it all. Especially as I've failed two tests. :mad: Hence, he is a liability and an accident waiting to happen.

[nicemms]

:erm:

Woops! I meant to 18. Maybe I put 16 because I am 16 or maybe because its thursday and nearly the end of the week! :p

[Daniel]

I'm not so sure on that. I have a mate how 'fluked' his driving test after a few months and now thinks he's the best driver in the world and knows it all. Especially as I've failed two tests. :mad: Hence, he is a liability and an accident waiting to happen.
How do you know he fluked the test? Were you there?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well he wouldn't pass it now :p

[Alfa Fan]

How do you know he fluked the test? Were you there?

Do you have to get in pedantic arguments with everyone?

[Alexamateo]

Simple solution to that, why not use the green 'P' plates for people who have passed their test but haven't passed the motorway segment. ;)

That wouldn't work, when I was 16 I drove 4 separate vehicles at different times, my mom's car, my dad's truck, my truck, or my motorcycle. Many 16 year olds only drive mom or dad's car, you wouldn't want a special plate attached to the car. Heck, my dad's been known to borrow mine from me.

On the original topic, 16 is good for licensing. Here you get a learner's permit at 15 to ride with another licensed driver. There are some wanting to make it a graduated license with restrictions until 18. It would be similar to the motorcycle license here in Tennessee. I got my motorcycle license at 14, and was restricted to 125cc, 7 miles from home, and daylight hours only. I never broke those restrictions either :angel: :D not! :devil:

[ST205GT4]

Restricting the capacity/power of vehicles that young men can drive is being tried here in some states of Australia. It will be a dismal failure as it's not the power of the vehicles that is the problem, it's the yahoos behind the wheel. Unfortunately, young guys like to screw about. It's in their nature. I have no idea how it will ever change.

There was a study done at one of the universities here in Australia that found no link between engine power/capacity and fatalities amongst young drivers. Don't have time to find the link right now.

[Rollo]

there are suggestions that the minimum age for driving may becaome 18 and drivers should have to undergo more rigerous tests and restrictions.
while I think this is a good idea, I think that the figures are misleading.


Let me think about these two statements in conjuction. On one hand you want more rigorous testing yet you also want to cut their ability to gain experience? Please explain.

I think ALL drivers should be retested every 5 years as part of regular licensing requirements. Why stop at young people? It's possible for someone to get on the roads at age 20 and go through 50+ years without ever being retested - this is preposterous.

I note that you say this:


I would suggest restricting drivers with less than 3 years driving experience to a maximum litreage of 1.1 and power of 50 hp to slow the little buggers down.

and yet in another post say this:

a 1.1 car will do 90mph and tow a small trailer.

Clearly restricting people to a 1.1L car isn't the answer then is it? By your own admission a 1.1L is already capable of breaking the speed limit. ST205GT4 and Iain both correctly point out that the car is not to blame but the driver.


we also need to have a insurance scheme that young drivers can afford because £1000 for a baby car is taking the piss and encouraging them to drive without it.
Complusory 3rd party insurance exists in NSW. You can't register a car in the first place unless you're insured. Problem solved. Please enact this in the UK.

[Flat.tyres]

Let me think about these two statements in conjuction. On one hand you want more rigorous testing yet you also want to cut their ability to gain experience? Please explain.

I think ALL drivers should be retested every 5 years as part of regular licensing requirements. Why stop at young people? It's possible for someone to get on the roads at age 20 and go through 50+ years without ever being retested - this is preposterous.

I note that you say this:


and yet in another post say this:

Clearly restricting people to a 1.1L car isn't the answer then is it? By your own admission a 1.1L is already capable of breaking the speed limit. ST205GT4 and Iain both correctly point out that the car is not to blame but the driver.


Complusory 3rd party insurance exists in NSW. You can't register a car in the first place unless you're insured. Problem solved. Please enact this in the UK.

ok Rollo, let me explain.

at the moment, the test can be taken on your 17th Birthday and you can jump into a bently twin turbo if you have the dosh.

part of the proposal was to have a minimum number of lessons prior to being able to take a test which would increase the level of competence and experience of any new driver to a specific, minimul level.

this will give them more rigorous testing and a minimum level of experience that is higher than what is currently in place. agreed?

2nd point. Agreed. I think it's crazy that people think they have a licence to drive how they bloody well like just because they got a licence out the top of a pack of cornflakes 50 years ago. every 5 years is fine by me but drivers will have to accept that there will be a financial cost for this improved safety.

3rd point. some agreement. a 50hp, 1.1 car is still capable of exceeding the speed limit. what it does do is limit the speed kids can accellerate / drive at and the potential energy involved in a crash. it is not some way of changing the drivers mindsets as the proposed testing improvements will address that. it is a way of minimising the effects of a crash should it happen. after all, it's pretty easy losing a soooooped up calibra booting it round a corner showing off but a little more difficult and not quite so impressive in a 1.0 litre punto that would have trouble wheelspinning on a skid pad.

last point. agree 100%

[Iain]

5 year retests - no thanks. :s

[KILOHMUNNS]

[quote="Rollo"]
I think ALL drivers should be retested every 5 years as part of regular licensing requirements. Why stop at young people? It's possible for someone to get on the roads at age 20 and go through 50+ years without ever being retested - this is preposterous.

quote]

In principal a good idea, but I can't see it really working. All that would happen is that the drivers would drive sensibly for 1 day in every 5 years just so they could pass!!! The only real benefit would be to see if people can still have good eyesight or not.

If someone wants to drive they will regardless of age, engine size, ability, as a certain minority already do (as thet are banned, no insurance, licence).

[Brown, Jon Brow]

ok Rollo, let me explain.

at the moment, the test can be taken on your 17th Birthday and you can jump into a bently twin turbo if you have the dosh.

part of the proposal was to have a minimum number of lessons prior to being able to take a test which would increase the level of competence and experience of any new driver to a specific, minimul level.


If they did this then they should reduce the cost of driving lessons.

How many lessons?

£20 per hour, if you had 12 lessons then that's £240 plus £60 for using the car for your test.

The DSA recommend about 40 lessons. :s

[Flat.tyres]

If they did this then they should reduce the cost of driving lessons.

How many lessons?

£20 per hour, if you had 12 lessons then that's £240 plus £60 for using the car for your test.

The DSA recommend about 40 lessons. :s

I cant see how they can reduce the cost.

if a driving instructor does 6 lessons a day, with 15 mins driving / break between clients and an hour for lunch, not taking into account any holdups or traffic, he will work about 8.5 hours a day or 42.5 hours a week.

take off 8 days for bank holidays and 20 days Holiday leaves him with 232 working days a year and a Gross wage of £26,840 not including any sickness etc.

you take out of that a new car every 3 years, his tax, petrol, insurance etc and the poor bugger hasn't got much to live on as it is.

[BDunnell]

I think ALL drivers should be retested every 5 years as part of regular licensing requirements.

In order to achieve that, pretty much everybody would have to become a driving instructor in order to deal with the backlog!

[LotusElise]

ok Rollo, let me explain.

at the moment, the test can be taken on your 17th Birthday and you can jump into a bently twin turbo if you have the dosh.


Not here you can't. All Bentleys are insurance group 20 and you have to be 25 before you can have any car in that group.
I would support more age-banding with insurance groups, plus tighter rules, enforceable by spot-checks, regarding modified cars.

[Caroline]

I would support more age-banding with insurance groups, plus tighter rules, enforceable by spot-checks, regarding modified cars.

Makes much more sense... :)

But regular retesting should be considered. It would certainly sharpen up people's skills and make them value their licence more.

[Captain VXR]

Good point Caroline. Also raising the age to 18 wont make the slightest difference, all that will happen is that people wait longer. Simply before even being allowed a prov they should do a maturity test to see if they are up to learning to drive :)

[Iain]

I'm dead against the retest idea. It cost me so much money, time and effort, not mention mental and emotional torture to pass the damn thing, I'd like to think that's me past that stage. :s

[nicemms]

Or are you like my dad and are worried that you wouldn't pass now because you have forgoten how to drive properly and got into bad habits? :p :

[RaikkonenRules]

So if this rule passes, what happens to the people who are not yet 18 but have passed their driving tests and have a license.

[Erki]

So if this rule passes, what happens to the people who are not yet 18 but have passed their driving tests and have a license.

Make them take the test again(for free) when they're 18.

[Rollo]

I should like to point out with all of this that society expects its members by some degree to become fully functioning citizens by the time they are 18. At age 18 the Inland Revenue relaxes the dependancy rules, and people have the right to vote.

By raising the driving age to 18, in effect you're confining people who might be qualified to work, to a life of scrounging and using public transport, which might sound useful in theory, but what if you happen to be an apprentice for a plumber or a sparky? What of the young parents with kids who may need to cart them around? If you're working at Tesco until midnight, how are you supposed to get home after the trains and buses stop?

By the time I was 18 I was independent from my parents and was already driving from Blackpool up and down the highways of the realm. I had a job and was "mature" enough to pay bills and upkeep on it even though it was crap.

How do you reconcile that to the removal of freedoms that would be considered normal elsewhere?

[sonic_roadhog]

Raising the age limit won't make a tiny bit of difference. I see a lot of young drivers come thru my doors and I know damn well after teaching them everything I know about safe defensive driving, 50% of them will be driving like tits within a month. It makes no difference if they are 17 and a half or 18 and a day.

Personally I favour a system similar to the french, whereby driving is taught in stages. Perhaps as young as 15 as part of school education and can be passed in stages from private road training to master basic skills, onto day time driving, night, motorway etc. Regulation could be achieved by enforcing the use of P plates (linked to the insurance and number plate recognition) of different colours to denote how qualified any particular driver is, therefore the police or an automated camera could detect any driver using roads beyond their level.

I don't favour the limitations on vehicles, we have all seen enough 106's or saxo's filled with teen's driving flat out - even a 1.0L can hit nearly 100mph. Its the driver attitude that needs adjusting not the cars they can drive.

[BDunnell]

I should like to point out with all of this that society expects its members by some degree to become fully functioning citizens by the time they are 18. At age 18 the Inland Revenue relaxes the dependancy rules, and people have the right to vote.

By raising the driving age to 18, in effect you're confining people who might be qualified to work, to a life of scrounging and using public transport, which might sound useful in theory, but what if you happen to be an apprentice for a plumber or a sparky? What of the young parents with kids who may need to cart them around? If you're working at Tesco until midnight, how are you supposed to get home after the trains and buses stop?

By the time I was 18 I was independent from my parents and was already driving from Blackpool up and down the highways of the realm. I had a job and was "mature" enough to pay bills and upkeep on it even though it was crap.

How do you reconcile that to the removal of freedoms that would be considered normal elsewhere?

On a related issue, I think the Government ought to consider some kind of legal definition of what constitutes a 'minor', for want of a better word. The inconsistency between different aspects of life in this respect does seem unnecessary. How can some public events, for instance, state that a child is 'under 12' for the purpose of their entry fees, while others take the relevant age to be 16? There are other, better examples.

[Dave B]

True. I remember having to pay full fare on the train to the cinema, but not being allowed to see an 18 film!

[LotusElise]

I'm dead against the retest idea. It cost me so much money, time and effort, not mention mental and emotional torture to pass the damn thing, I'd like to think that's me past that stage. :s

I'm actually with you here. I got so nervous during the driving test that I found it really stressful and difficult. Driving normally, this does not happen. The on-the-spot nature of driving tests doesn't replicate real driving experience very well. The presence of the examiner was distracting for me.

Structured driver training, with learning in stages, sounds very sensible. I would include compulsory night lessons and additional motorway training after an initial test pass in this as well.

[Mark]

I should like to point out with all of this that society expects its members by some degree to become fully functioning citizens by the time they are 18. At age 18 the Inland Revenue relaxes the dependancy rules, and people have the right to vote.

By raising the driving age to 18, in effect you're confining people who might be qualified to work, to a life of scrounging and using public transport, which might sound useful in theory, but what if you happen to be an apprentice for a plumber or a sparky? What of the young parents with kids who may need to cart them around? If you're working at Tesco until midnight, how are you supposed to get home after the trains and buses stop?

By the time I was 18 I was independent from my parents and was already driving from Blackpool up and down the highways of the realm. I had a job and was "mature" enough to pay bills and upkeep on it even though it was crap.

How do you reconcile that to the removal of freedoms that would be considered normal elsewhere?

Perhaps the rules can be changed in such a way that you can get a provisional licence at 17 years, and thus be able to drive supervised and learn, but you can't sit your test and get a full licence until your 18th birthday.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well I have to go through it all again tomorrow for the 3rd time :s


:uhoh:

[Loobylou]

Well I have to go through it all again tomorrow for the 3rd time :s


:uhoh:

Good Luck!

[Daniel]

Well I have to go through it all again tomorrow for the 3rd time :s


:uhoh:
Just be calm and steady and you will pass

[BDunnell]

Just be calm and steady and you will pass

And remember to drive on the correct side of the road. Add that to being calm and steady, and you won't go far wrong.

Seriously, good luck.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I am pleased to announce that I have passed it! :up:

Happy as Larry!! :D

:beer:

[Daniel]

Good stuff :) Now get prepared for people to tailgate you and cut you up and so on :mark:

[GridGirl]

Well done Jon. :)

[Iain]

Dammit, I was hoping you'd equal my record to make me look a bit better. ;) :p :

Well done. :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I haven't been out on my own yet, but did anyone find the thought of going out on the road by themselves a little worrying? :s

[Daniel]

I haven't been out on my own yet, but did anyone find the thought of going out on the road by themselves a little worrying? :s
First drive I ever did was to a karting track :) A little strange at first but it's good to be on your own.

[LotusElise]

Well done Jon!

Going out on your own feels a bit weird at first, but you get used to it really quickly! If you haven't been out already, get out there as soon as you can. You won't regret it.
For my first solo drive, I surprised my mum with a visit to her work.

[Hondo]

I haven't been out on my own yet, but did anyone find the thought of going out on the road by themselves a little worrying? :s


Not at all. It was great! the ultimate 15 year old (Texas motorcycle license age) freedom! A candy apple red Honda Motosport SL 90, a pack of Camels, gas at $0.18 a gallon and camping on the beach in Galveston. Oh yeah, liability insurance....$16.00 a year.

[Hazell B]

Didn't bother kme at all on either the motorcycle or in the car.

When I was doing my first lesson a customer in the bar where I worked got all 'me man, you pathetic woman' on me and said most women never drive on motorways their entire life, so I passed first time and drove first time out alone along the motorway just to prove him wrong. Having passed my bike test, I wasn't new to motorways, otherwise I wouldn't recommend copying me. The man, by the way, lost his licence soon after :laugh:

[KILOHMUNNS]

My daughter had her 1st lession last year at 12!!! and about to have her 2nd lession.
OK so it's not on the road but at Rockingham race circuit in a mini with a proper instructor. I am hoping to get her to have a couple more before she is 18 so when she does pass she will have respect for driving and being on the road.

[Drew]

I've always thought the limit for alcohol, 18 films, driving, voting and so on should be lowered to 16. Afterall you're allowed to fight for your country and leave school to work, legally have sex, why not the rest? But I understand why people have problems with that :)

It's all well and good if you live in London, with good public transport, but if you live in the country or most other places you're screwed.

[BDunnell]

I've always thought the limit for alcohol, 18 films, driving, voting and so on should be lowered to 16. Afterall you're allowed to fight for your country and leave school to work, legally have sex, why not the rest? But I understand why people have problems with that :)

It's all well and good if you live in London, with good public transport, but if you live in the country or most other places you're screwed.

I would tend to agree. This is one of the main reasons why I think there should be a uniform national age for everything — and better rural public transport too, of course.

[Drew]

I would tend to agree. This is one of the main reasons why I think there should be a uniform national age for everything — and better rural public transport too, of course.

It seems to be swaying to 18. To buy fags soon you'll have to be 18 and I think I heard plans to change the school leaving age to 18 too?

I think that's pretty hard to do. It wouldn't be commercially viable for any company and subsidies would only last for so long.

[BDunnell]

I think that's pretty hard to do. It wouldn't be commercially viable for any company and subsidies would only last for so long.

What, taking the age to 18 or setting a uniform age? If you mean the latter, I'm not sure it would be too difficult. As Dave pointed out earlier, some of the discrepancies are rather ridiculous.

The difficult thing is the argument that 'if 16, why not 15'. Well, I understand that totally, but I think there does have to be some sort of age limit, and 16 seems sensible. However, when I was 16, I don't remember being irritated that I couldn't vote or so various other things, so it's a difficult conundrum.

[Hondo]

I would tend to agree. This is one of the main reasons why I think there should be a uniform national age for everything — and better rural public transport too, of course.

How do you intend to pay for this improved rural public transport? Additional taxes and fees?

[BDunnell]

How do you intend to pay for this improved rural public transport? Additional taxes and fees?

Increased professionalism on the part of existing operators would be a good start. There also needs to be the realisation that rural transport is a necessary service even though it may not be commercially viable all the time. Not everyone in rural areas can be expected to have access to a car, and those under the driving age or who choose not to drive need some form of regular, affordable transport.

[Drew]

What, taking the age to 18 or setting a uniform age? If you mean the latter, I'm not sure it would be too difficult. As Dave pointed out earlier, some of the discrepancies are rather ridiculous.

The difficult thing is the argument that 'if 16, why not 15'. Well, I understand that totally, but I think there does have to be some sort of age limit, and 16 seems sensible. However, when I was 16, I don't remember being irritated that I couldn't vote or so various other things, so it's a difficult conundrum.

I meant about the buses :) For example from the town I live near, to get the bus to Plymouth takes 45 minutes and costs something like £4.50 return, the train 15 minutes and about £2 return and the car is about 10 minutes and parking is pretty much £1 = 1 hour.

In rural areas, buses are going to have to make more stops to make it viable and use low quality roads to do so = more expensive and longer. People would still use the car :)

At 16 you are given certain responsibilities, such as you can fight for the country, leave school, get a job and pay taxes to a government that you have no decision in. If the school leaving age is raised, then 18 will become a fair age to raise it all to - even if I don't really agree with it. With regards to voting, that's all subjective.

[Hondo]

Increased professionalism on the part of existing operators would be a good start. There also needs to be the realisation that rural transport is a necessary service even though it may not be commercially viable all the time. Not everyone in rural areas can be expected to have access to a car, and those under the driving age or who choose not to drive need some form of regular, affordable transport.

You didn't answer the question. How is it going to be paid for and by whom? Those that could drive but merely choose not to drive should feel to make other arrangements on their own.

[Hondo]

At 16 you are given certain responsibilities, such as you can fight for the country, leave school, get a job and pay taxes to a government that you have no decision in. If the school leaving age is raised, then 18 will become a fair age to raise it all to - even if I don't really agree with it. With regards to voting, that's all subjective.

Were you equally adverse to accepting the government tax money that paid for your schooling and medical needs for 16 years, while you contributed little or nothing in the way of taxes? How often are you allowed to directly vote on taxes or fees anyway? Do they come out and have a public vote about raising VAT taxes, or income taxes, or road use fees?

[Drew]

Were you equally adverse to accepting the government tax money that paid for your schooling and medical needs for 16 years, while you contributed little or nothing in the way of taxes? How often are you allowed to directly vote on taxes or fees anyway? Do they come out and have a public vote about raising VAT taxes, or income taxes, or road use fees?

I had no choice in the matter. We could go onto other things that waste tax money, but that'd just go around in circles.

Rarely do the public get to vote on individual matters anyway, tax or not.

[Hondo]

I had no choice in the matter. We could go onto other things that waste tax money, but that'd just go around in circles.

Rarely do the public get to vote on individual matters anyway, tax or not.

You're right. I wonder why we aren't allowed to vote on individual tax matters? Could it be that taxes would be far lower and a far higher level of accountibility would be expected for those taxes that were collected?

How many of us have seen politicians of one party or another shouting loudly to the world while pushing for a new program that will do all sorts of wonderful tricks and best of all, it won't cost us a penny in new or additional taxes or fees only to come, hat in hand later on, mumbling about overly optimistic projections and errors in the base calculations, etc, oh, and by the way, we are going to have to raise taxes to pay for this mess? My feeling on that is that any politician that was dumb enough to vote for the project in the first place should be billed, along with his other "yea" voting buddies, his share of the deficit, to be paid out of his personal wealth. Now that would be a major step forward in political accountability.

[BDunnell]

No it wouldn't. It would be grossly unfair. Unlike you, I do not think that taxation is automatically a bad thing. I tend not to worry about it, because I believe I pay a fair amount of tax.

What's your solution to funding improved local public transport, then?

[BDunnell]

You didn't answer the question. How is it going to be paid for and by whom? Those that could drive but merely choose not to drive should feel to make other arrangements on their own.

And not have transport provided for them? No, I can't agree with that at all. What other arrangements do you think would be practical? Personal helicopters? Jet packs? Expensive taxis? Public transport links are vital for many local communities from which, for one reason or another, people have difficulty travelling to elsewhere.

As for my answer not having been clear, I think it was good enough. Some of the improvements would not require extra funding. Local authorities could also use existing transport subsidies more effectively. I don't think it would take a massive injection of extra funding.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Now that I can drive I wouldn't even consider using public transport, because it is FAR too expensive, inconvenient, slow, dirty and less pleasurable than driving. My house to work is a 8 minute journey in a car, on a bus it is a 20 minute one and costs over £3 or a single :mad: Also, because it is only an hourly service I would either be 10 minutes late or 50 minutes early.

[BDunnell]

A lot of people have no choice, or choose not to drive. The option has to be open.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Where does all the money from congestion charging go? Would it be plausible for a free bus service in towns that was paid for by a congestion charge? Or would the funding for the buses dry up as more people stopped driving into towns when they could use a bus for free?

[BDunnell]

Where does all the money from congestion charging go? Would it be plausible for a free bus service in towns that was paid for by a congestion charge? Or would the funding for the buses dry up as more people stopped driving into towns when they could use a bus for free?

In London, it goes back into various transport-related projects, including bus services. I certainly noticed an improvement in bus provision soon after the CC was enforced.

The question as to whether congestion charging could be counter-productive as a result of it being so successful that the revenue derived from it is too small to bother with is an interesting one. Any scheme would have to be really successful to reach that point, but it could happen.

[Drew]

You're right. I wonder why we aren't allowed to vote on individual tax matters? Could it be that taxes would be far lower and a far higher level of accountibility would be expected for those taxes that were collected?



I said there should be more referendums (in another thread), but was told it wasn't a great idea. I imagine they would have to raise the tax in order to put such a system in place...

[Hondo]

I said there should be more referendums (in another thread), but was told it wasn't a great idea. I imagine they would have to raise the tax in order to put such a system in place...

Whether it's a good idea or not I would think depends on how honestly you present the issue and the manner of presentation.

In Texas there are many tax issues that are decided by popular vote, among them being city sales taxes and property (real estate) taxes. Local school districts are funded by property taxes. Property tax increases are almost always passed the first time although every now and then an increase will fail until the school board does a better job of explaining the need for the increase.

Contrary to the professional politician's view, not all taxes and fees will be shot down all the time just because they are taxes. We don't want our money wasted on nonsense. Isn't London having some difficulty with the Olympic funding and cost overruns? Believe it or not, I've been known to vote for tax increases myself. I resent however, being used as governments personal ATM machine.

[Hondo]

No it wouldn't. It would be grossly unfair. Unlike you, I do not think that taxation is automatically a bad thing. I tend not to worry about it, because I believe I pay a fair amount of tax.

What's your solution to funding improved local public transport, then?

I wouldn't fund rural public transport. Thats part of the breaks of living in the country.

[BDunnell]

Whether it's a good idea or not I would think depends on how honestly you present the issue and the manner of presentation.

In Texas there are many tax issues that are decided by popular vote, among them being city sales taxes and property (real estate) taxes. Local school districts are funded by property taxes. Property tax increases are almost always passed the first time although every now and then an increase will fail until the school board does a better job of explaining the need for the increase.

Contrary to the professional politician's view, not all taxes and fees will be shot down all the time just because they are taxes. We don't want our money wasted on nonsense. Isn't London having some difficulty with the Olympic funding and cost overruns? Believe it or not, I've been known to vote for tax increases myself. I resent however, being used as governments personal ATM machine.

I, on the other hand, do not feel hard done by at any time by taxation. Of course it would be nice to pay no tax, or less, but I am happy knowing that while some of my money (a very small amount in real terms) goes towards things I disagree with and may be wasted, some of it also goes towards valuable things that I'm pleased to contribute to. It's an imperfect system, but I don't think it can ever be modified to suit everybody and choose to accept this. I am less acceptant of many other things, but the current method of taxation, I can tolerate.

[BDunnell]

I wouldn't fund rural public transport. Thats part of the breaks of living in the country.

Well, I disagree fundamentally with you, but there you go. Neither of us is going to agree with the other on this point.

[Hondo]

No it wouldn't. It would be grossly unfair. Unlike you, I do not think that taxation is automatically a bad thing. I tend not to worry about it, because I believe I pay a fair amount of tax.

What's your solution to funding improved local public transport, then?


I do not think taxation is automatically a bad thing. Taxation is a necessary thing. I think allowing government to tax and fee as they see fit without specific public approval is automatically a bad thing. I do not believe governments job is to try to make things artificially equal for everybody all the way around the board.

[BDunnell]

I do not think taxation is automatically a bad thing. Taxation is a necessary thing. I think allowing government to tax and fee as they see fit without specific public approval is automatically a bad thing.

I believe that holding a referendum on every single item of taxation, of which there have to be many, would be unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive.

By the way, apologies if I misrepresented your general view on taxation.

[Hondo]

Now that I can drive I wouldn't even consider using public transport, because it is FAR too expensive, inconvenient, slow, dirty and less pleasurable than driving. My house to work is a 8 minute journey in a car, on a bus it is a 20 minute one and costs over £3 or a single :mad: Also, because it is only an hourly service I would either be 10 minutes late or 50 minutes early.

Spoken like a true Texan. Thats why Houston has never been able to get a sales tax increase to fund a public light rail choo-choo to go from one end to the other. Nobody wants to ride the thing. This late in the game, I'm not sure, but even their Metro Bus public transportation system used to lose money all the time. Maybe it pays for itself now.

[Hondo]

I believe that holding a referendum on every single item of taxation, of which there have to be many, would be unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive.

By the way, apologies if I misrepresented your general view on taxation.

No apology necessary, it is easy to get that opinion of me. I don't believe planning ahead, getting your ducks in a row, and going to the people twice a year with tax proposals would be unworkable or extremely expensive. In fact, I would dare to say if handled honestly it would increase peoples respect for their elected officials. I want to know my money, that I worked damned hard for, is being used prudently and not being thrown away on some feel-good program that is really designed to garner votes to keep the official in office. You may not believe it, but I'm really a very charitable guy and probably donate more money willingly than I'd be willing to allow the government to take. Of course, I get to pick and choose where my money goes. As a general rule, not very much of it goes to people that REPEATEDLY make poor life style choices while expecting me to pick up the tab for their care and feeding. I have no pity for them. I have no problem with those who have been dealt a bad hand and are struggling to fight their way back. I applaud those people and will help them as I can. I don't care if thats "fair" or not. Some people regularly demonstrate by their actions that they have more value than others.

[Drew]

I wouldn't fund rural public transport. Thats part of the breaks of living in the country.

This is the great difference between our countries. Many rural British areas were built hundreds of years ago before industrialisation.

[Hondo]

This is the great difference between our countries. Many rural British areas were built hundreds of years ago before industrialisation.

Ok, fair enough. How much are you, personally, willing to contribute to a rural transportation system? How long are you willing to contribute? Bear in mind the system isn't likely to ever pay for itself, much less turn a profit. If it could, a private company would already be doing it. Would you rather have buses in the country or better schools and/or medical care? What will your feelings be in 5 years when the numbers show that many city dwellers have moved to the country to get away from the crime, grime, noise, higher city taxes, and congestion of the city and best of all, thanks to the rural bus system you are funding for them. actually commute to their jobs in the city cheaper than they could when they lived in the city?

I have a problem with forcing a rural transportation on the taxpayers against their will. Package your proposal honestly, don't sugarcoat it by claiming it will pay for itself, tell them what they can expect to pay for it on an individual basis and let them vote on it. You may sell it, but I think most Britons would rubbish it also.

[Mark]

That's the very reason why rural brach lines were closed in the 1960's. Indeed it was said that it would be cheaper to pay for individual taxi's for each of the people rather than run trains.

Buses are another solution, but again, they cost a lot to run so they need a good amount of passengers on them.

All public transport needs a certain number of people going from the same place to the same place at the same time for it to be effective, and in rural areas those numbers often just aren't there. The solution to the problem, strangely enough, is private transport, i.e. cars :p

[GridGirl]

Now that I can drive I wouldn't even consider using public transport, because it is FAR too expensive, inconvenient, slow, dirty and less pleasurable than driving. My house to work is a 8 minute journey in a car, on a bus it is a 20 minute one and costs over £3 or a single :mad: Also, because it is only an hourly service I would either be 10 minutes late or 50 minutes early.

Yeah its quicker, but is your car seriously cheaper once you've put petrol in it, tax it and insured it?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yeah its quicker, but is your car seriously cheaper once you've put petrol in it, tax it and insured it?

I didn't say that it was cheaper than driving, but it is expensive for what you are paying for when you travel by bus. I'd pay more for the privilege of driving a car as it provides a far better service than the buses do.

[Hondo]

Yeah its quicker, but is your car seriously cheaper once you've put petrol in it, tax it and insured it?

Maybe not, but he can listen to whatever music he wants, drink his coffee, nibble a sandwhich, sing, fart, decide to make an unscheduled stop on the way home, I guess smoke if he wants, not have to listen to 16 cell phone conversations than don't concern him, or pretend to tolerate the bad and boorish behaviour of the ill-mannered that he may find himself sitting next to on the bus.

It's not always about cheaper.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Ok, fair enough. How much are you, personally, willing to contribute to a rural transportation system? How long are you willing to contribute? Bear in mind the system isn't likely to ever pay for itself, much less turn a profit. If it could, a private company would already be doing it. Would you rather have buses in the country or better schools and/or medical care? What will your feelings be in 5 years when the numbers show that many city dwellers have moved to the country to get away from the crime, grime, noise, higher city taxes, and congestion of the city and best of all, thanks to the rural bus system you are funding for them. actually commute to their jobs in the city cheaper than they could when they lived in the city?

I have a problem with forcing a rural transportation on the taxpayers against their will. Package your proposal honestly, don't sugarcoat it by claiming it will pay for itself, tell them what they can expect to pay for it on an individual basis and let them vote on it. You may sell it, but I think most Britons would rubbish it also.



As Drew said, Britain is far different from America. Rural areas over here probably aren't as 'rural' as places in America ;) I'm considered to live in a rural area but I'm still only 10 miles away from 3 large towns (Preston, Lancaster & Blackpool) yet the bus service is a complete joke. Surely there are people who want to go from town to town and to do that they have to go through the countryside. An improvement in bus services would benefit all.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe not, but he can listen to whatever music he wants, drink his coffee, nibble a sandwhich, sing, fart, decide to make an unscheduled stop on the way home, I guess smoke if he wants, not have to listen to 16 cell phone conversations than don't concern him, or pretend to tolerate the bad and boorish behaviour of the ill-mannered that he may find himself sitting next to on the bus.

It's not always about cheaper.

:up:

[Hazell B]

An improvement in bus services would benefit all.

Would it? You've already said you wouldn't use buses again now you drive (belated congratulations, by the way) so do you really want to pay for others to not bother using buses too?

I'm fairly rural here and the locals in one village had petitions and what have you to improve the bus service. A local company supplies the bus, arrives about five or six times a day and how many people use it do you think? Well, when it passes my land it's generally empty :mark:

The school children are on the old service that already existed, so that is used heavily, but all the rest are empty more often than not. The most on it would be three or four adults going to meet their children or grandchildren from school. It's pointless. And the local bus company that runs it had the foresight to sign for a five year contract, so they get paid anyway and it can't be dropped from service :mark:

[BDunnell]

Ok, fair enough. How much are you, personally, willing to contribute to a rural transportation system? How long are you willing to contribute? Bear in mind the system isn't likely to ever pay for itself, much less turn a profit. If it could, a private company would already be doing it.

Rural bus transport — indeed, almost all bus transport — was privatised in the UK long ago, in 1986.

In any case, our experiences of privately-run as opposed to publically-run public transport in the UK have shown that there is mostly little advantage to privatisation other than keeping the running of the system off the balance sheet, and that in terms of standards of service in the transport business, the public sector has little or nothing to learn from the private sector. Rather, in the UK, the public sector has much to learn from the well-run public sector transport systems that we all find in other countries when we go to mainland Europe.

[BDunnell]

Maybe not, but he can listen to whatever music he wants, drink his coffee, nibble a sandwhich, sing, fart, decide to make an unscheduled stop on the way home, I guess smoke if he wants, not have to listen to 16 cell phone conversations than don't concern him, or pretend to tolerate the bad and boorish behaviour of the ill-mannered that he may find himself sitting next to on the bus.

It's not always about cheaper.

Neither is it always about whether a service can turn a profit.

[BDunnell]

That's the very reason why rural brach lines were closed in the 1960's. Indeed it was said that it would be cheaper to pay for individual taxi's for each of the people rather than run trains.

This was proved to be way off the mark.

In addition, the cuts made by Beeching in the 1960s failed to take into account the social value of the railway network. I say again that running a transport system cannot all come down to whether each bit makes a profit Our trouble in the UK is that successive governments have not taken a sufficiently long-term approach to addressing the needs of the transport network. This was the case before the Second World War, it was the case in the 1960s and it is the case now.

You only have to travel to many mainland European countries to see the difference. In Germany, for example, the rail network is a genuinely viable alternative to road transport, and not just because the distances cross-country are larger than in the UK. It is because there has been planned investment over the years, a longer-term attitude to the development of the network, and no botched privatisation carried out for the wrong reason (in the UK's case, because John Major looked at the competition between train companies of the inter-war years through rose-tinted spectacles and thought he could re-create it — in fact, this was deeply misguided, as the competition was completely unsustainable.)


The solution to the problem, strangely enough, is private transport, i.e. cars :p

Which can then create a whole set of new problems. Again, it's part of looking at transport 'in the round' and coming up with policies that reflect this, rather than treating each bit separately.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Would it? You've already said you wouldn't use buses again now you drive (belated congratulations, by the way) so do you really want to pay for others to not bother using buses too?


If buses where cheaper and provided a higher quality, more frequent service then I might consider using them.

[Drew]

Ok, fair enough. How much are you, personally, willing to contribute to a rural transportation system? How long are you willing to contribute? Bear in mind the system isn't likely to ever pay for itself, much less turn a profit. If it could, a private company would already be doing it. Would you rather have buses in the country or better schools and/or medical care? What will your feelings be in 5 years when the numbers show that many city dwellers have moved to the country to get away from the crime, grime, noise, higher city taxes, and congestion of the city and best of all, thanks to the rural bus system you are funding for them. actually commute to their jobs in the city cheaper than they could when they lived in the city?


I already said that about buses, subsidies wouldn't last forever. The process that you're talking about has already happened in the UK and quite a long time ago as well. It happened with the popularity of the motorcar. Also I doubt that if they moved to the country, they would not use a slow bus service, rather their merc.

There are a few "park and rides" in my nearest city. It's a pretty cheap bus ride (in comparison) and the parking is free (not common in the UK) but of course you have to drive all the way there anyhow.

[Garry Walker]

Age doesnt drive, skill does. My friend started driving around the city at 13 and has never had any accidents. Thats because he knows how to drive. Some people somehow get the license, but even after many years of driving they arent very good at it. This goes especially for women and that isnt sexism, that is realism.
Driving Tests should be made much harder to pass and people who fail once, shouldnt get the chance to try again for quite a long time. I know some people have tried around 7-8 times before finally passing (this was in summertime, what would happen if it was an icy road?), why should a person like this get a license?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Age doesnt drive, skill does. My friend started driving around the city at 13 and has never had any accidents. Thats because he knows how to drive. Some people somehow get the license, but even after many years of driving they arent very good at it. This goes especially for women and that isnt sexism, that is realism.
Driving Tests should be made much harder to pass and people who fail once, shouldnt get the chance to try again for quite a long time. I know some people have tried around 7-8 times before finally passing (this was in summertime, what would happen if it was an icy road?), why should a person like this get a license?

That the biggest load of crap that I have read in my 18 year career of being a person :mad:

[Hazell B]

That the biggest load of crap that I have read in my 18 year career of being a person :mad:

Hidden among the rubbish, there's one very good point. The test should be harder, a lot harder in some areas. I know a couple of people who've passed and they're frankly lacking all common sense behind a wheel. Observation and parking ability, they have none :mark:

As for women being generally worse drivers, being man means you never, ever get to say that. It's like somebody saying your baby is ugly or telling you you're fat - it just isn't done. Women are allowed to say women are worse drivers, men are not. Women are worse drivers, mind :p :

Does anyone remember taking the pee out of me a year or two ago when I said pretty soon the biggest killer of late teen to mid twenties girls will be male drivers of the same age range? I believe a certain pretentious forumer said he'd never read such drivel. Looking forward to his U turn as today the authorities that compile the stats said the biggest UK killer for the younger lady is in fact the younger male driver.
Don't say I didn't tell you so ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hidden among the rubbish, there's one very good point. The test should be harder, a lot harder in some areas. I know a couple of people who've passed and they're frankly lacking all common sense behind a wheel.


Lack of common sense isn't just lacking from driving though. It is a much larger social problem. With all of the health and safety/nanny state culture we have today people don't have to use common sense because they are protected from any potential danger. So when the time comes for common sense to be applied, they don't have the ability to apply any.

I don't know how to make the driving test harder. I'd vote for having to do all 4 maneuvers on the test. I know people who have passed and they can only do two of them, and those were the two that they got on their test.

[BDunnell]

Lack of common sense isn't just lacking from driving though. It is a much larger social problem. With all of the health and safety/nanny state culture we have today people don't have to use common sense because they are protected from any potential danger. So when the time comes for common sense to be applied, they don't have the ability to apply any.

I don't know how to make the driving test harder. I'd vote for having to do all 4 maneuvers on the test. I know people who have passed and they can only do two of them, and those were the two that they got on their test.

I don't think that the ubiquitous health and safety/nanny state argument really applies in this case, because bad driving by young people really started to become a bigger problem before many would suggest that this culture (if it exists) developed to its current extent.

Your second paragraph rather hits the nail on the head. People often say that the driving test should be made harder, and probably rightly so, but how? To do so would probably involve a huge amount of bureaucracy, and a massive number of additional driving instructors, to name but two potential problems. Some sort of psychometric testing is another idea, but I bet a lot of people would object to it, and probably with good grounds. Again, the sheer number of people being tested would require a lot of resources. What's more, giving people motorway lessons, as is often suggested, would be rather hard to achieve in many areas where people live far from the nearest motorway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, merely pointing out a practical problem.

[Stuartf12007]

raising the age to 18 seems like a great idea to me.

It should also be mandatory for new license holders to display 'P' plates on there vehicle for a year, in addition a 0% alcohol limit should be introduced.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It should also be mandatory for new license holders to display 'P' plates on there vehicle for a year.

What difference would that make? Apart from other drivers taking advantage new drivers. Will it make the car heavier and slow it down?

"I'll cut in front of him because he's a new driver", "it doesn't matter if I crash into him because I'll blame him as he's a new driver"

The whole point of the 'P' plate is for people who have passed their test and are worried about stalling at traffic lights and holding others up. If you see they have a 'P' plate your less likely to show aggression towards them.

[akv89]

Experience is a bigger factor than age. If the driving age is raised to 18, there will probably be just as many accidents since the 18 year olds would be just as experienced as the 16 year olds right now. In the U.S. teens need to spend 30 hrs in a class room, 12 hrs taking driving lessons, and some more time practicing with their parents. It would be a good idea to increase the number of hours driving on the road, even if at the expense of the class room lessons. It's easier said than done since more driving hours either means higher prices for lessons or an increase in taxes, so it is something that really needs to be thought out.
Making the road test tougher is a good idea, but it should still be easy enough that the majority of the people who take it will pass.

[Rollo]

What difference would that make? Apart from other drivers taking advantage new drivers. Will it make the car heavier and slow it down?

"I'll cut in front of him because he's a new driver", "it doesn't matter if I crash into him because I'll blame him as he's a new driver"

The whole point of the 'P' plate is for people who have passed their test and are worried about stalling at traffic lights and holding others up. If you see they have a 'P' plate your less likely to show aggression towards them.

http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2007/07/27/27pPlate_m_m.jpg

In practice it makes bugger all difference but does let you know on the motorway that they are restricted to slower speeds.

It's mandatory to display P Plates for 3 years in NSW. For the first year, drivers are restricted to 90km/h and then for two years to 100km/h (the highest posted motorway speeds are 110km/h)

Anywhere where the speed is less and from a practical standpoint there's really no difference at all. If everyone is doing 60km/h down the same stretch of road then it's almost a non-event.

[Mark]

I don't see the point in speed restrictions, as doing 60mph over Hardknott pass is going to certainly get you killed, while doing 60mph on the M1 is about as safe as you can get while driving.

There does seem to be an increasing nanny stateism, and drivers expecting to be told what to do, rather than using common sense. e.g. The road from Keswick to Honister has a 40mph limit, where other roads elsewhere would be NSL (60mph), now 40mph is about as fast as any sensible driver will be going on that road anyway, so we shouldn't need speed limits to tell us that.

[BDunnell]

I don't see the point in speed restrictions, as doing 60mph over Hardknott pass is going to certainly get you killed, while doing 60mph on the M1 is about as safe as you can get while driving.

There does seem to be an increasing nanny stateism, and drivers expecting to be told what to do, rather than using common sense. e.g. The road from Keswick to Honister has a 40mph limit, where other roads elsewhere would be NSL (60mph), now 40mph is about as fast as any sensible driver will be going on that road anyway, so we shouldn't need speed limits to tell us that.

The trouble is that a fair number of drivers probably do need to be told what to do. It's all very well then saying that the test needs to be harder, but in what ways? No-one seems to be able to answer that in a way that is practical.

There is no doubt, though, that road planners and highways departments now assume most drivers to be stupid. You only have to look at some of the absurd junction designs, changes to the simple roundabout and the proliferation of pointless road markings and signage to see this. Yet whenever extra signage really is needed, it often never seems to be erected!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I wouldn't expect a harder driving test to reduce young road deaths. Most road deaths involving young people happen at night with drugs and alcohol as contributing factors. There is never just one person involved in these accidents, it is usually a group of 8 people squished into a Corsa and the driver tries to show off to them, by taking a corner at 80mph whilst steering with his feet or something.

[Mark]

I think the American idea of classroom tuition is a good one, and not just on subjects such as braking distances and hazard awareness. But also covering wider topics such as map reading, route planning, knowing what the different signs mean (not just the warning triangles).

[Hazell B]

How to make the test harder?

That's easy enough, if you think about it. Introduce a trainer's 'score card' system where the lessons a new driver has taken are listed and any little niggles the instrucor had are noted. Make it legally binding, of course, like the schools exam system, so instructors aren't liable to cheat.

Doesn't take any more test people at all, doesn't cost much to introduce, plus it makes sure the learner has had some form of trained instruction (I suggest a minimum of six or ten hours) rather than had their mum teach them her bad habbits the week before they're tested. Anyone who really wants to drive will pay for six or ten lessons. The only real cost to the authorities would be some mystery shoppers (people who test the instructors without them knowing) to make sure offering bribes and so on isn't common.

Adding to the written test would also help. I didn't have to do it, but did some pretend ones with a friend who was taking her test. It was too easy - I passed without any revision at all. That's not good enough, I should have had to think hard and have forgotten some of it - but instead worked out the answers far too quickly. Didn't feel tested at all :mark:

[BDunnell]

Yes, I wonder what the rationale was behind the system whereby having some formal instruction before the test isn't required, because it does seem strange to assume that everybody will have been sensible enough to do so.

I suppose I was referring to the content of the test itself.

[Hazell B]

Fine, add to the content too. Another ten minutes should do it. Hardly a bank breaker considering what's at stake.

Roundabouts should be in the test, nobody ever gets them right. Even a fake one in a car park is better than nothing, if there's a centre with none near.

[Hondo]

I suppose that accepting the fact that the privilege of driving and riding on the motorways and roads carries with it a certain amount risk if you want to participate in the game is out of the question?

I got my motorcycle license at age 15. They didn't have an engine size restriction then, only a 5 bhp restriction which covered you up to around 90cc engines. There weren't many 100cc bikes then. Freeways only had a restriction of a minimum of 45 mph. If your bike was street legal and could do at least 45 mph, you were free to ride anywhere. I did alot of riding in Pasadena, Texas during a time when tagging a motorcycle was generally considered good sport and if you squashed one now and then,....oh well.

I learned defensive driving real quick. Don't ride in groups of cars, when braking check the rearview mirrors to make sure the car behind you is braking, leave a gap to the car in front of you so you can accelerate out of the way if the guy behind you can't stop fast enough, don't ride in the middle part of the lane because thats where leaking fluids from cars accumulates, make sure you can see the face of every driver around you either directly or in his rear view mirrors so he will see if he bothers to look, if you can't see his eyes, he won't see you, and last of all always play the "what if" game i.e., if this lame b@stard pulls over right now, what am I going to do?

I have arguments with people about accidents. Yes they are going to happen, but driving defensively and always being aware of what is going on around you can limit your participation in them. I know a lady that has had 4 accidents in the last year. Legally, one was actually her fault and she was a party in the other 3. I've told her all 4 were avoidable if she had been paying attention and wasn't such a lousy driver. She, like many others, views her car as a semi-passive extension of her living room and once she is pointed in the right direction and has the stereo set where she wants it, goes brain dead until the car finds it's way to their destination.

I have no problems with 15-16 year old drivers, as long as they drive. Thats what they got the permit for, to control their vehicle on public streets. If they just want to be comfortable and listen to music, stay at home on the couch.

[BDunnell]

On a related subject, I read a wonderful story some years ago about Eoin Young, the motorsport writer, which I hope I can recall enough of to recount correctly. When he moved from New Zealand to England (initially to assist Bruce McLaren), he obviously had to take a British driving test. When he went for his test, he turned up in an Austin-Healey 3000 that had just finished a rally, and showed it. Young had it on loan for some reason. He proceeded to take the test in this Healey. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the examiner failed him...

[BDunnell]

Fine, add to the content too. Another ten minutes should do it. Hardly a bank breaker considering what's at stake.

Indeed not, though night driving, motorway driving, et al would probably be too much for the system.

[Hazell B]

I suppose that accepting the fact that the privilege of driving and riding on the motorways and roads carries with it a certain amount risk if you want to participate in the game is out of the question?



Here, yes. The average 17 to 20 year old is covered by the "it won't happen to me" safety blanket of youth and over confidence. I know, I was one.

Even though I'd been stuffed through a car windscreen and had two years of corrective surgery at the ages of 13 to 15, I still got a motorcycle from my boyfriend for my 17th birthday and off I went like a loon. Pretty soon I was straight on to an RD350 YPVS having passed my test. A month later I was on the Isle of Man watching people road race. Not smart, but I got away with it. Two of my school classmates did not. One of them took a car driver's face and some of her arm with him ....

Young men like to show off. They can't help it. Sometimes they need to be stopped with new laws as words, pictures and stories just don't sink in.

[Hondo]

I would suggest that a 1 year, motorcycle only permit, would be mandatory for anyone under age 18 to get a full permit. Funny what having your arms, legs, and the rest of your body at risk to injury does for your vehicle operational skills and situational awareness. Ultimately, the ones that aren't up to it will weed themselves out the same way they did before seat belts and airbags.

maybe this kind of accident would never have happend

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4puojV5bh0E (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4puojV5bh0E)