new driver proposals

[dombanks]

is this just another one of our crap govts knee jerk reactions used to cover up something more important?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792

 

whilst i dont disagree with some of them the ideas the curfew rules are stupid. when i was a new driver it would have meant i couldnt have driven to the cineama or gone to my part time job or done a whole bunch of other stuff, and before anyone says i could have used a bus there wasnt any after 7pm.

 

i think the idea of extra tuition is a good idea and there is some validity to the 100hrs dyalight 30hrs night time probation. i did the pass plus thing but my intructor said it was pointless for me. as a learner my dad allowed me to drive everywhere. i regulaly drove at night/in rush hours, on motorway style dual carriageways, and in pretty crap weather conditions. it was obviuous that my ability was much better than some of my peers simply due to my confidence and experience

 

 

 

 

[XTR2Turbo]

I think with young drivers there is often confusion between ability and recklessness and immaturity.

 

I'm not sure that the answer is to have lots of extra tuition.

 

The main problem I suspect is that when they get behind the wheel with a few mates or a few girls the instinct to show off comes to the fore with inevitable consequences.

 

I suspect on their own in normal driving few accidents would happen.  Hence the suggestion for time curfews, older passengers etc

 

The danger is that the proposals are too blunt and with technology and bit of thought they could better address the problem - but at a cost.

 

David

[pete g]

I agree more crap rules.

 

just fit black boxes to all cars.  see who are the bad drivers then

[TrophyJem]

My 18 year old son has a telemetrics box in his car that his insurance company monitor. 

If he breaks the speed limit or drives recklessly they would take his insurance away.

It gives him cheaper insurance and gives me peace of mind that he's not speeding everywhere. 

Forcing all young drivers to have these boxes solves the problem. 

[SteveD]

My 18 year old son has a telemetrics box in his car that his insurance company monitor. 

If he breaks the speed limit or drives recklessly they would take his insurance away.

It gives him cheaper insurance and gives me peace of mind that he's not speeding everywhere. 

Forcing all young drivers to have these boxes solves the problem. 

 tbh im s***ting myself about when willem starts to drive in a 17months time ,this is a good idea

[Wile E. Coyote]

There have been proposals to increase the age to 18 for as long as I can remember.

They never seem to go anywhere though.  Perhaps as a result of whichever government is in power at the time realising that:
 

1) They're about to p*** off the next generation of voters

2) They'll kill licensing revenue for a year

3) They'll face complaints from driving instructors / examiners who face a quiet year.

It has however surprised me that they never seem to have looked at graduated licensing (along the lines of bike licenses).

 

As for telematics: convinced it's a con.  They monitor speed and g forces (high is bad, obviously, as far as the box is concerned).  In doing so they overlook issues such as lane discipline, the appropriateness of speed, compliance with traffic signals, etc.  In fact, you could argue that as driver with the box could be penalised for taking evasive action (for example swerving or braking heavily to avoid an incident), they're better off making others avoid them.

[dombanks]

im not thinking loads more tuition norm just different stuff. e.g do they do any kind of skid awarenes or what hapens when a tyre blows out or you hit ice or you have to swerve to avoid something? just stuff like that. i dont remember having any kind of lessons about that stuff i learnt it all through getting in a car at 11pm at night with my mates in asda carpark.

 

i remember learning how to reverse around a corner so the kerb was 1foot away all round, doing a 3 point turn, parking in a slot/and parallel (although i disagree with reversing into a slot as your boot is at the back so how do you get your shopping in). the only emergency stuff was emergency stop. not how to cadence break or any thought to avoidance etc just slam on and dont worry as the insrtuctor car had ABS.

 

i really dont think kerfews and no passengers will solve the problems. neither do i think that tlemetric boxes will do the trick either. maybe in some cases but i think it will just delay the recklesseness until they are removed when they get a bit older and with the costs people are just not taking insurance.

 

wile i think you may have a point. but i dont know enough about them. i would like to see more info about these and more data. e.g. if you drove on a cobbled street at 30 what would the g meters be doing compared to driving on a smooth road. i dont think they should change the age either. 17/18 makes no difference.

[Wile E. Coyote]

neither do i think that tlemetric boxes will do the trick either. maybe in some cases but i think it will just delay the recklesseness until they are removed when they get a bit older and with the costs people are just not taking insurance.

 

Thin end of the wedge.  Surprises me that people think that, if the majority of your drivers have these fitted, that the insurance will let them migrate to "traditional" policies.

 

I can hear the conversation now:

 

21y/o: I'd like a renewal quote please.

Broker: Certainly, ahh I see you've got a telematics box and a history of nice safe monitored driving, we'll only charge you a grand this year.

21y/o: How much if I don't want the box any more?

Broker: Why wouldn't you want the box?  Are you planning on driving dangerously?

21y/o: No, of course not, I'd just like to know how much it would cost.

Broker: OK then, <tap tap tap> the equivalent dangerous driver policy will be three grand.

21y/o: Dangerous driver??? what the devil?  I've shown you for the past four years that I'm a safe driver!

Broker:  We know that.  But you don't want a box anymore.  We have to assume that you might want to drive (or end up driving) dangerously as a result.

21y/o: But I'm not going to!!!

Broker: In that case save yourself two grand and have the "safe driver" policy...

 

...and when we've all got them, say hello to road charging.

 

ETA: "what the devil"??? I didn't write that!  I never knew the swear filter filtered mildly sweary acronyms!

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

I share the same thought on black boxes. Once on, never removed? Why would you?

 

I do sometimes wonder if the car had only just been invented, would any government in the first world actually permit it to pass in to general use.

[pete g]

problem is have you got £3000 to pay for a group 1 car  .car insurance at 17 years old. most have not so have no option.

[Rhett Turner - Black Country AO]

Couple of comments

 

In response to once on never removed, my belief is that you are tied to one company for at least two years (removal before two years makes you subject to a £100 removal fee) after two years then you shop around with out mentioning the box, just like you need to anyway (eg renewal came through recently for three of our cars (one with black box) for circa £2500, new quotes with same insurance company £1600)

 

I am not sure at all about the latest bought of proposals they seem to have gone two far, there were a set 6 months or so ago that looked much better. From memory they had things like can't take test for 12 months but can start to learn earlier, can't drive after 23 or before 7 unless you are travelling to or from a job, a limit on young passengers, but not a total ban (if I remember).

 

I guess it is difficult to argue against some of the stats eg a large number of serious (major injury or death) accidents late at night while carrying a number of youngsters. 

 

I also think there is a vast variation in the quality of tuition around and poor tuition leads to poor drivers, eg "I'm turning right eventually so I'll sit in the outside lane now and drive at what ever speed I choose for 2 miles and don't dare undertake me", you come across quite a few people being taught that this is the way to drive. What other poor practice are they being taught.

[Wile E. Coyote]

In response to once on never removed, my belief is that you are tied to one company for at least two years (removal before two years makes you subject to a £100 removal fee) after two years then you shop around with out mentioning the box, just like you need to anyway (eg renewal came through recently for three of our cars (one with black box) for circa £2500, new quotes with same insurance company £1600)

 

Today, yes.  Tomorrow, I fear not.

What's the odds that "does your vehicle have a safe driver box fitted?" becomes as common as "any alarm or immobiliser?".  Likewise, wait for them to be factory fitted on superminis and then try and get them disregarded at the time of getting a quote...

If they want people to have them, then the insurance companies will find a way to make it a valid part of their risk profiling process.

[jeff oakley]

The statistics on young drivers is alarming, however this is no more than seeing what the reaction is. Parents and those with a licence will say it is good, but the reality is that it is ill advised.

 

They could do much more by making them have a P plate visible for the first year. As sometimes in experianced drivers are harrased by others who know no better.

They could restrict the power of the car, so you have an engine with less than 50bhp.

Restricting people in the car is the best one, make them have no passengers at night ad it will save lives as the mixture of young people, drink, bravado inexperiance will alway heighten the risk.

 

As for the black boxes, it is the thin end of a very large wedge. The insurance companies and goverments all over the world want these fitting as standard because then they can monitor you 24 hours per day. Just think about it you have an accident they download the data and see you were speeding, good excuse not to pay you out, instant savings for them. Download every year and see you get your foot down, increased risk you pay out an extortinate amount again more money for them.

 

We allow this creeping control because they convince us it is in our best interest and anyone who says no is either a terrorist, a lunatic or a criminal.

[pete g]

I have a tracker on my merc . this is for recovery in case stolen. how do I know its not being used for other reasons ?. [i don't]

 

but it makes my insurance cheap £230 this year .

[Young Pretender]

Restricting the number of people in the car just doesn't strike me as a workable solution. At any rate I'm not convinced that having more people in the car necessarily fuels the bravado that people assume.  I think it's about maturity and I would be all for raising the driving age limit..  I think I got sensible in my late twenties.. possibly   

 

I don't think the argument is about insurance premiums though.  If it is, then to my mind it's about making the obscene cost of fixing a car a bit more realistic and regulating the insurance companies who are basically out to fleece each other come claims time.