According to today's papers, car crashes are the main cause of accidental death of 16 to 24 year olds. Yet IMHO, insurers are partly responsible. Obviously they cannot control testoterone levels in young males. But they should not condemn them to the smallest, weakest cars that offer the least protection to passengers in the event of a crash. Huge insurance premiums and the current grouping system leave so little money for the car itself, they force kids into 10 - 15 year old Fiestas, Kas, Puntos, AXs, 106s, with minimal occupant protection and weakened by structural corrosion. If insurers re-thought their grouping system for younger drivers allowing them into bigger cars with better occupant protection, then the death rate would probably decrease and so would the cost of claims, allowing premiums to become more affordable.
HJ
|
I can emphasise with Roger about the two second rule. Sticking to it has meant that my motorway driving is a lot calmer and in the event of needing to do an emergency stop, I have plenty of space to do it in.
Not sure about making young drivers wait for 18 months before letting them take their test. I passed my test with one minor* three months after my 18th birthday and have never had an accident. (touch wood).
All you'd accomplish is more young drivers driving illegally.
* didn't check the handbrake was on when starting the engine, even though I was the last person to drive the car and always start it with the brake and cluth depressed. Such is life.
|
I'm not sure about this making drivers wait either.
I passed my test 4 months after my 17th birthday and so, have been driving since then.
My sister hasn't shown anywhere near as much interest in it and I'd be surprised if she even took a test before she was 19-20. Let's say she did though, and she passed, she'd be a new driver at 20. I'd have been driving 2 and a half years by that age.
Assuming we're of equal competence (too esay to slot a joke in here), who would be the better driver? (It could work the other way too if she was older - I'm not having a go at her!)
--
Adam
|
|
As an aside why not insist that newly qualified drivers pay there own inshurance rathere than be added to there parents policy.
|
If you've got your own car, you have to be otherwise, why not be insured on your Mum and Dad's car seeing as it's theirs and you would only drive it occasionally.
--
Adam
|
|
|
As an aside why not insist that newly qualified drivers pay there own inshurance rathere than be added to there parents policy.
As an aside, let's see the number of uninsured vehicles skyrocket. Bet when you learned to drive the insurance prices weren't as high as they are now.
|
>> As an aside why not insist that newly qualified drivers >> pay there own inshurance rathere than be added to there >> parents policy. >> As an aside, let's see the number of uninsured vehicles skyrocket. Bet when you learned to drive the insurance prices weren't as high as they are now.
They certainly weren't when I had my first car in 1974 aged 17, newly passed the test. Car value £125 (Triump Herald convertible), tpft £35.
|
Possibly, technology might be helpful. For the same car, different keys could unlock different aspects of its performance. So, young people could drive, say, 3.2 litre Vectras, and enjoy all of the passive safety benefits, but not all of the 160mph speed.
Their insurance would, of course, require them to be using the correct key - I'm sure technology could easily be implemented to make this difficult to fiddle - a dedicated area of ECU memory, recording which key was used when, which could be interrogated using standard diagnostics for example.
One other possibility is to make advanced driving courses really pay off by encouraging insurers to seriously penalise *all* drivers, not just the young, who drive with only the basic driving test.
As you might expect from me, I don't think introducing any more legislation is a sensible idea. Don't we have enough already?
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
A lot of accidents are not just attitude related but actual inability to drive, with or without passengers in the car!
I know many young drivers who, although passing the test, cannot drive what I would call safely and some have no hazard perception or even get the basics right, with no distractions as an excuse ie. no music playing, no nookie in the back seat etc
Only two accidents I have been nvolved in were caused by women drivers, one doing her hair in the mirror and the other checking on her kids on the backseat.
I stay well clear of anyone with a 'baby on board' sticker in car, may as well replace it with 'cannot drive safely'.
What is the point of the signs? Not like I drive like a maniac all the time and upon seeing a sign think, 'hmmm if there is a baby on board i must drive sensibly'.
|
Or when the car's rolled over in a ditch, the Fire Brigade know there's a small kid knocking around somewhere.
--
Adam
|
Or when the car's rolled over in a ditch, the Fire Brigade know there's a small kid knocking around somewhere. -- Adam
Or not, as the case maybe. Unless the driver only puts the sticker on when the little darling is in the vehicle.
|
|
I know many young drivers who, although passing the test, cannot drive what I would call safely and some have no hazard perception or even get the basics right, with no distractions as an excuse ie. no music playing, no nookie in the back seat etc
I went for a drive with my youngest daughter today and I'd certainly agree that she lacks hazard perception. For the more experienced amongst us, driving becomes second nature. I go on an annual defensive driver refresher with work and I always find the commentary section illuminating. The sheer volume of info you're (normally) sub-conciously processing is enormous. I think young drivers are probably driving a their mental limit - it's all they can do to cope with the basics - never mind the additional 'advanced' element. If they're distracted as well, then they're really in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
yes they were I remember my first two litre mondedo cost 1500 to inshure (close to its value). Now after I have been driving for a while my no claims bounus and the fact that my inshurance broker deals with my business inshurance aswell helps to keep it low however my R reg 3.1TDI Isuzu trooper costs £500 per year and my present p reg mondeo £200.
I do not object to inshurance prices and am suprised others moan. For me Inshurance is part and parcel of owning and running a vehicle, just as mot tax and serviceing are. If i could not aford to inshure my vehicles i would not drive them
|
Not everyone adopts those principles though which is where the problem starts.
--
Adam
|
I personally think there should be a cheap, but very realistic game for all the main consules that encourage and train drivers.
We have all seen the V Rally 2s of this world that get you to drive fast around a virual dirt track, but what game is there that helps you train to pass your test and be a safer driver.
Such things as Hazerd perception etc could be included. You could even have a social hazard level - I am not joking! This level would allow you to tell your passengers to shut up or turn the radio down so you can concentrate better.
In addition the usual pets running out in front of you, idiot drivers etc could all play a virtual part.
How do we get young drivers to play this game? Simple, Produce it and sell it for £5 or less, with a discount voucher for the test fee, and make sure it's designed to be fun but also steepen the learning curve to cut down on the driving lessons needed.
Ok so which software house is going to develop this one?
Hugo
|
Another couple of ideas on this theme....
1) The game could start the driver off in a basic car and allow him/her to progress to better cars when the skills develop.
2) The game could alternate between road driving and "Away Days" at a track of the drivers choice. The different driving styles and disciplines for each situation could be focused upon. for example, there are other road users to consider on the road whereas during time trials you have the track to yourself.
H
|
|
|
|
|
According to today's papers, car crashes are the main cause of accidental death of 16 to 24 year olds. Yet IMHO, insurers are partly responsible. Obviously they cannot control testoterone levels in young males. But they should not condemn them to the smallest, weakest cars that offer the least protection to passengers in the event of a crash. Huge insurance premiums and the current grouping system leave so little money for the car itself, they force kids into 10 - 15 year old Fiestas, Kas, Puntos, AXs, 106s, with minimal occupant protection and weakened by structural corrosion. If insurers re-thought their grouping system for younger drivers allowing them into bigger cars with better occupant protection, then the death rate would probably decrease and so would the cost of claims, allowing premiums to become more affordable.
It certainly fills me full of horror when friends, who could afford more, let their kids drive old bangers. When my daughter needed a car on leaving University she was looking at cars not quite in the above category, but not far off. You can only do so much for kids but I felt it essential to help her buy a car with good NCAP rating and with ABS, and I paid extra for side airbags, too.
|
I agree totally with HJ on this one, my mate smashed his AX into the back of someone when the brakes failed on the old wreck.
Fortunately only his AX was seriously injured, the other driver left the scene without complaint and I don't think any insurance claim was ever made (which was a miracle in itself!) but what if he had hit a pedestrian instead of another car?
And before anyone says anything the car had a valid MOT. The problem was down to the car essentially being an F reg piece of scrap.
Fortunately the driving test now includes basic car safety checks, but quite frankly most people in my age group probably can't see the point and find that stuff boring. For as long as I can remember cars have been machines that don't often break down and need little if any checking. Most other young people have had similar experiences and so it's bound to rub off on their attitudes. My dad on the other hand can remember days when every other weekend involved some lengthy car maintanence.
Blue
|
|
RE: the basic safety tests. Astonished to see that most of my friends in Leeds had no idea about anything with the cars. They couldn't even change a wheel, and came to me for help... despite the fact that the procedure was clearly described in the manual.
|
If you have kids under 17 and you want them to understand driving risks etc then join the Under-17 car club - www.under17-carclub.co.uk/
Both my kids went through this very excellent car club - from elementary driving lessons to high speed car control on a track.
This included skid pan and first aid tuition. One very excellent lesson was to let them drive an artic - so they learn just how much space and respect these machines deserve. There are many skill tests in different cars to give them a broad experience.
IMO, there is no better way to teach a young person to control a car - my son passed his driving test just six days after his 17th birthday, including taking the theory test. He can still drive my own car better than I can.
The club needs several years to give your kids the best possible start to driving.
Once they get their licence, you could push them towards IAM or RoSPA, but this will not give them the breadth of experience as the Under17 club.
|
|
|
"Is our test too easy? Are we preparing people to pass a test rather than drive a car?"
In my opinion, that's where young people are being failed by 'the system'.
Yes, they'll still go and drive like young people will, probably get themselves into a few sticky situations early on in their driving careers - but they might be more prepared to deal with them if they were taught to drive rather than simply to pass their tests.
EXAMPLE:
I am helping to teach my younger brother to drive. He is being taught primarily by a national chain driving school, and has got his test booked for three weeks time - his instructor told him he was ready. So, last Wednesday evening, i suggested we go out for a drive. His first response was
"Oh, i've never driven in the dark before!"
Well that's national driving school chain's failing number one, if you ask me. Inevitably, he's going to have to drive in the dark at some point - far better he does it first with someone experienced sitting next to him.
So, off we go, and he's managing ok. I take him onto the A41, on a nice fast section between Watford and Aylesbury. He's looking very nervous, and when i ask him why:
"I've never been on a proper dual carriageway before"
This is from a student three weeks from test date! Anyway, i re-assure him, and he grows more comfortable with the 70mph speed limit, watching cars go past him (never had that before either of course), and even gets confident enough to overtake lorries and slower cars.
I'm pleased with his progress, but decide to take him back home a different way, down some single-track roads i know. So we pull off the dual-carriageway and get onto these back roads. We're going very cautiously (fair enough, he doesn't know the roads, it's dark, and he's a learner), but then says to me:
"I don't like this, can you take over until we're back on proper roads please?"
This has clearly taken soem real guts - he's my little brother, and we've always been very competitive. Admitting he was scared to me was a pretty big thing to own up to, meaning he must have been VERY worried indeed.
Anyway we swap seats, and i drive us back to main roads, where he manages fine on the way home.
The scary thing about this?
If i hadn't taken him out onto some less suburban roads for a bit of practice, then on the night of the 4th October, my little brother could be pulling onto the M25 next to you, having never driven a car in the dark, or experienced any kind of multi-lane traffic flow.
The moral is that learning to drive should re-focus more on actually learning to DRIVE, not on passing a test of suburban daylight driving competence.
|
|
|
|
|
>>If insurers re-thought their grouping system for younger drivers allowing them into bigger cars with better occupant protection, then the death rate would probably decrease and so would the cost of claims, allowing premiums to become more affordable.
I see. Put them in bigger, more powerful cars and the problem will get better ? Well I can't see any flaws there.
How many new Saxos with free insurance are wrapped around various trees, signs, other cars, etc. ? Presumably none - because they're not 15 year old cars consumed by structural corrosion.
Insurers are not responsible. They are not driving the car. They are not forcing it to be driven recklessly; in fact the premium penalties for a young driver wiht a fast/powerful car or a history of accidents are so severe that they could be said to be actively discouraging such behaviour.
Still, its always more comfortable when there's a large institution to blame - it saves the effort of facing the truth that we don't train children to drive very well and then they behave like idiots in cars and situations that they can't control.
As somebody says later in the thread, we should be offering better training.
|
|
|
|
|
