Minimum Driving Age

[MAT1800]

Perhaps a small change to the law, similar to the probation system now in place that new drivers, what ever their age! have to be accompanied by an experienced driver for the first 6/12 months??

I agree all this will do is delay matters, and as pointed out for many ggetting your first car and passing you test gave you the ability, not only to drive your mates around, but to go out and earn the money to do so.. we all do stupid things, at all times in our lives, but if we arn't given the chance to act responsibly we'd never learn, not to mention the thousand of safe drivers who will be punished as a result! I passed at 17 and apart from a SP30 I was never involved in any driving offences.... touch wood!  

[Darren B]

I think that a system of a minimum amount of training should be set before you can take your test (maybe a year as a provisional licence holder for example) would build some experience.  You could then have a test similar to the German one that I believe lasts about 3 hours and is a far more rigorous study of the driver, rather than our poxy 30 mins sat in traffic and doing 3 point turns (or whatever they are officially called nowadays) that proves someone can concentrate for 30 mins in a generally familiar area.

This way you get a min of 18 yr olds doing their test (assuming they apply for a provisional licence at 17), a years worth of supervised experience, and a test that is more representative of real world driving that ultimate proves that someone has earned the privilage to drive and not assumed that it's a god given right.

Just my pennies worth.

[Asterix]

One day, none of us will be allowed to drive

[Crazy Eddie]

30 mins sat in traffic and doing 3 point turns (or whatever they are officially called nowadays)

Turn in the Road

I actually like the fact that the driving age is 17 at the moment as at least it gives a year before they can legally drink.

We are, as always, talking about the minority here as apposed to every 17 year old driver is out there being dangerous so raising to 18 IMHO is going to make no difference.

What I would like to see though is a limit on both power and passengers for a limited period eg a 600cc engine for the first year or 2 and then be graded at the end of that period to see if can progress to a more powerful car. The passenger issue is quite important too as it takes away "pressure to impress" so 1 passenger only for same period. They should legaly have a "P" plate on the car that is on the numberplate so that easy for the police to see and so that it is harder to remove than these current magnetic ones that people don't bother with.

With all this said I do think that the overall standard of driving in this country is terrible and that check tests should be brought in every 5 years or so just to ensure driving standard is satisfactory, or at least a set ammount of advanced lessons.

Problem with all my ideas is that they will involve investment and raising the age to 18 is free so I know which option is more likely.

2.5 p worth

Actually I've just had a thought. Rather than adding air bags etc to make people safer, and therfore over confident, why not have a big spike out of the steering wheel? That would make you drive carefully wouldn't it ?

[The Irv]

I agree its the training that needs to be looked at, as suggested in a previous post a minimum number of hours of training before you can take your test should be brought in.

When I started my flight training a few years ago i always thought it would be a good idea to bring in some of the practices of flight training into driver training. Stuff like a minium number of hours before you can take the test (say 40-50 hours), solo driving time in special designated areas so the driver can get used to driving without an instructor before they even take the test.

Another possibility could be to introduce more advanced driver training into lessons as standard such as extensive bad weather training in snow/ice conditions, increase the amount of night time training, skid recovery training at specialist driving schools, carry out the training in both front and rear wheel drive cars, provide additional training in cars with and without abs, power steering etc.

You could even go as far as putting cars into differing performance catergories, and having to take addition training before you can drive a car in the next performance band.

Yes all of this may bring in additional costs, but its a small price to pay to have safer drivers.

Steve

[DMMS]

There are a few things that I feel would be beneficial.  First of all, there should be a requirement not only for a minimum number of driving hours completed prior to sitting a test but also for a minimum amount of tuition from a qualified instructor.

Secondly, vehicle categorisation should be widened such that different types of car should fall into different groups: for instance basic, low power cars, performance cars, 4x4s, SUVs, people carriers etc.  The initial test should only enable drivers to use the most basic category.  To progress onwards up the categories, drivers would be required to take further tests specifically for that type of vehicle.

Thirdly, there needs to be a requirement to take refresher courses at time intervals and where drivers have been caught driving inappropriately, for instance after an at fault RTA or after a number of points on their license.

Of course, the above would be a nightmare to administer and very costly to progress through creating an argument that only the wealthy would be able to drive.  But something needs to be done!

[KerryS]

All these ideas that incur costs should be balanced by the benefits that might be potentially obtained through less accidents.

But the bu@@er is of course that those who incur the costs are different from those that gain the benefits - so what's new??    

Also, this thing about zero alcohol. I though that this had been discounted in the past because some folks can have a low residual level all the time whether they've been drinking it or not. At work, we are subject to random tests and the rail industry limit is lower that that for road users. So in theory you could legally drive to work after a heavy evening, get a random test and be out of a job by lunchtime

[The Irv]

Also, this thing about zero alcohol. I though that this had been discounted in the past because some folks can have a low residual level all the time whether they've been drinking it or not. At work, we are subject to random tests and the rail industry limit is lower that that for road users. So in theory you could legally drive to work after a heavy evening, get a random test and be out of a job by lunchtime

Aye, I was always told not to have any fishermans friends or to put too much deoderant on before heading to the airport as they can put certain people over the limit for flying...not sure if that was a load of bull or not but it certianly gets you thinking about all the "non-alcoholic" products out there we use everyday      

Steve

[wilsonch]

TRAINING IN SKOOL.

There is no point trying to educate a 17/18/19 year old because they already know everything  

Driving education either within the school term or special classes in co-operation with the police AND medical staff to graphically show the consequences of stupidity BEFORE they get behind the wheel.

Minimum number of hours tuition...easy money for driving instructors, every body learns at different rates, just take a pole of no. of driving lessons we have had before passing the driving test.

As for engine size limit.....have you all forgotten what you drive.....even if its less than 1200cc....megablade, megabird please only one spare seat but who wants to carry passengers when you can go this sodding quick

Its another knee-jerk reaction to a deep-rooted problem that needs a better qualified people then politicions to solve......

thats my 5 quids worth

Chris

[DIY Si]

Raising the age without any other action is a total waste of everyone's time. Also, the power or engine size thing needs to be looked at. Power to weight is a much better measure, as it removes the size issue. As said above, my Indy is only 1100cc, yet a more normal car would need a much, much bigger engine to equal it. Power to weight also removes the problem of turbo's and other tuning. I agree with the more training bit, and it needs to start younger. At 17 many think they are invincible, and drive according to what they've learnt on the XBox/PS3/whatever. I didn't drive like that for quite a while (I'll quite happily admit to the odd dodgy thing now), mainly because I was taught to be scared of a car, rather than seeing git as a god given right to hoon about like a t*t. The higher levels of driving training at such an young age of driving could well be a double edged sword though. Yes, they've been shown how to react in crap conditions, so they now know they can push harder in the nice, warm dry conditions. Which to be fair, you should learn in the normal course of things.

At the end of the day though, any useful solution will cost money, so the Gov't will just ban it, as it's cheaper that way.

[Andrew]

Havent read the whole topic, but I used to drive like a looney. Since doing trackdays in Daddies little car, I just dont see the point in going fast on the road anymore.

So, free trackday car and trackday to all drivers under 25 is the answer    

-Pilot Pete  

[wilsonch]

Here's an idea from the government think tank......

why not wait until the youffs commit a crime i.e driving to fast and crashing, carrying their mates, driving at night, killing someone else due to reckless driving AND THEN give them a free track day car and track pass as a punishment    

[sport 2000 Dan]

OK here i go....... I dont think that raising the age will realy do much. we all (ok maybe some) drive a little stupid when we are young! but as a person who has worked on the hard shoulder i really believe that driver training has to be improved... i will give you some examples. 1 driver has flat, doesn't know how to change it!!!!! 2 Some tw*t asks me while im helping another person while they have stopped in the slow lane for directions!!!! as they look at me as if i was stupid while i run away and shout all sorts of things to them!! 3 some bloke tells me that he doesn't want to change his wheel because he will get dirty!! sorry but these things are very dangerous and a simple task of changing a wheel is not included in the driving test , this would save many lifes as a motorway is a blo**y night mare at certain times of the day even on the hard shoulder! (i have several freinds killied or seriously injured because of either stupidity or down right lasyness!!!!!

[Gazz_2.0]

Here is my addition to the thread. I like most of you think that raising the age to 18 will make very little difference, 18 year olds are no more mature than 17 years olds. Delaying the start age (full licence after training) just means that there will be an extra 6 months or so pent up aggression stored in the average hormone filled 17/18 year old, it will just delay the inevitable. We must also remember that not every person who passes their test is a complete dick head.

I believe that the driving test as it stands is adequate ( maybe an adittional 15 mins would be good), the only thing that is needed is a compulsory motorway lesson after passing the test, this has to be signed off by an instructor before the full licence is issued. If people, especially young males, drove in the manner they passed their test things would be much rosier (how many of you have cussed because they have been 'caught' behind a learner driver?). The fact is they don't, all they want to do is get the fastest car they can afford an impress their friends with their 'expert driving'.

Parents are often part of the problem as well, they want their son or daughter to pass in the least amount of lessons possible after all most instructors are only out there to line their pockets and keep their children on their books for as long as possible. How often have I heard 'how many lessons will my son need? I passed my test in 10 hours back in the mid '70's, cars are easier to drive now aren't they'. However they don't flinch about giving them, or helping them to buy a relatively powerful cars and spending a thousand pound plus on insurance.

People are all different some take longer to learn than others, some a lot longer. That's true in any walk of life when learning a new skill, the test of their competence is not the number of hours they have taken its how they perform in the test and their attitude during and after the test, but mainly after when they have got their licence, this is the biggest problem. I have taught boys and it is 90% boys who cause the problems who have been very competent drivers with good ability to drive safely but are now driving around like complete idiots with no regard to life or limb theirs or anybody else's. I make it a point to tell my female pupils to let the boys know if their are driving foolishly and to make them stop and let them out. Its better to take half an hour to walk home from school than end up wrapped around a lamp post.

I would like to see...

Compulsory motorway lessons (after they have passed) I offer these after every test, take up is less than 10%

Restricted horse power maybe around 60hp. Can be upgraded after 12/18 months of clean driving.

The return to learner status, with 3 points or fault 'accident' bigger fines.

Graphic accident scenes to show how delicate their bodies are.

zero alcohol

Compulsory identification plate to show they have just passed (12 months).

......If they really want to cut deaths by raising the age, raise it to 21 for males!!!

Gazz (driving instructor for 18 years)

I have written this at 2 am forgive grammar punctuation etc.. No I'm not teaching in the morning

[ljsanders]

I remember about 10 years ago, a friend of mine (who was 25 at the time) passing his driving test after his 8th attempt

(yes eighth!). Then being totally scared sh*tless by his driving.

At the time I'd been driving about 4 years, and 2 of them having instruction by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

I was convinced he was going to crash his car within about a month of passing his test.

I was right, luckily I wasn't in it when he did, because he wrote it off.

In his car it was total naivity of his actions. Not because he was a cocky youngsters. He was just plain crap and inexperienced.

Then this morning I saw a middle aged woman turning right out of a main road into another main road where there was a central reservatoin and bollards (there were a set of traffic lights there that were off because it was off-peak). And turned right onto the wrong side of the road and continued to proceed oblivious to what she had done.

Luckily no-one was coming at the time.

My opinion is, I don't think taking 17 years off the road is going to make the blindest bit of difference. In both of the above cases, people are just stupid and crap.

The only difference its going to make is the number of arrogant and cocky brats on the road is going to be slightly less.