If You Could Live In Another Decade,...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Young Drivers
After the tragic car accident here (Scotland) on Monday evening in which four teenagers lost their lives after the 17 year old driver (passed test in Nov) was involved in a collision with another car (driver unhurt), a local politician is now suggesting that all young drivers under the age of 20 should only be allowed to carry one passenger for the first year after passing their driving test. The police have said that speed was a "significant factor".
Do any of you think that this would help reduce the number of fatal accidents on our roads which all to often involve young and inexperienced drivers?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by libertie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's tragic the number of young people (17-25 year olds) who are killed on our roads these days. Coming from a rural part of Scotland, where passing your test is your key to independence and a social life, too many of my peers lost their lives this way. The local politicians idea would perhaps minimise the death toll to an extent, but two lives lost in a car crash like this are still two too many. How you get these new drivers to understand the consequences of excessive speed, I do not know. They are often over confident in their abilities, despite very little road experience, and may also take unneccessary risks to impress passenegers. Even if they are not at fault for the crash, their lack of inexperience can mean they do not take appropriate action when an incident occurs. Maybe a longer learning period should be introduced and the driving test should be made more comprehensive, to account for accident avoidance techniques and skills more akin to the current Advanced Driving Test. The new drivers would then be much better equipped to deal with whatever their early motoring months throws at them.
kids were killed this way 10 yrs ago and 10yrs before that. It's a bit callous of me to say that I know but at the end of the day things haven't changed and no amount of nannying or rule enforcing will make a teenager see they haven't got all the answers.
There could be a method of reducing the engine size of cars youngsters can drive but that would have all kinds of implications - not least that at 50 miles an hour they can be killed if they crash.
It took a crash at my scool to make some kids think even though we had a number of talks on it - some people think they know best and they tend to find out they don't the hard way.
you're probably accurate in what you say TTFresh but the fact that kids have killed themselves in cars for years doesn't really add much to this debate.
Compared to 20 years ago, many more young people can afford cars now, or are bought cars by their parents. This alone means that the number of road deaths involving 17-25 year olds must have rocketed in the last couple of decades.
I agree that the nanny state can go too far but in some instances it's children (under 18s) that are being killed, and killing other children and so surely something needs to be done. Don't we have to at least try? If this was anything else that was killing our kids (drugs, alcohol, bare knuckle fighting, whatever), we'd want some action taken.
I don't see how that particular suggestion will necessarily prevent more deaths. A young driver, on his/ her own, could plough into a car carrying a family of four, killing them all., Except for raising the minimum driving age (to, say 20), I really don�t see what measures can be imposed hat will actually help the problem. Even then, who�s to say that a newly qualified 20 year old driver is going to be more responsible and have better judgement than a newly qualified 17 year old? Statistics say that most young driver accidents occur at night and early morning (between the hours of about 11pm and 3am I recall reading somewhere) so you could impose a curfew on young drivers between these hours though this would be pretty difficult and time consuming to police I would have thought. Perhaps young drivers could be taxed more heavily to make driving more expensive for them, but even then I doubt this would work as the cost of driving is already costly for them, especially in terms of insurance, but this clearly doesn�t deter younger drivers.
Young inexperienced drivers killing themselves in accidents kill an average of only just over 1 person per fatal accident (i.e. if anyone is killed, it's very likely that only one person is killed, and it is very rare for more than one to be killed). Therefore a more efficient way of reducing deaths in road accidents would be to reduce the number of fatal accidents, rather than trying to reduce the number of people who are avasilable to be klilled in each individual accident.
In other words, the local politician's proposal would only have a very marginal effect on the number of people killed, but would cause great inconvenience to young people going out.
In other words, to save lives one should enhance awareness, road safety and general responsibility rather than nannying the number of people in a car.
The proposal is ridiculous � all that�ll happen is there will be more cars driven by 17 year olds on the roads as a group of friends can�t all go in one car � and surely this will lead to more deaths not less - the concept of one designated driver in a group will be lost and just by averages your end up with more drunk drivers� oh reasons against can just go on and on. In fact it�s such a stupid idea I think the politician in question should be sacked if he really starts campaigning for this. Its a typical knee jerk reaction to tragedy that we can now expect from those in government when will they learn that action is a good thing but instant reaction hardly ever help...
put a limit on the size of engine for a new driver. I know this is not the complete answer as I have a 1 ltr Fiat Uno and I am sure I could still kill myself in it if i tried but it does limit the top speed I can travel at and force me to think about my overtaking options thus putting me and other road users at a lower risk.
I am sure they had this featured on Tomorrows World a few years ago. It was a box the was installed in speed limit signs that told a computer in your car not to let your car exceed the maximum speed limit. Why do we not have this? probably because it would cost too much to install and would do away with the revenue from speed cameras
I was trying to stay out of this, as I tend to rant on this subject, but couldn't resist.
Phantaxus: speed limiters wouldn't work, even if we could get past the protests of the Jeremy Clarkson's of this world and the people who legalised radar detectors - whose sole purpose is to aid people in breaking the speed limit - people would just disable them.
I think the problem lies in today's "I'm alright, screw anyone else" culture.
I generally drive at the speed limit (unless conditions dictate that I need to slow down). Most of the time, I find some idiot tailgating because I am not driving in excess of the limit. Motorway driving is hellish because it's difficult to change lanes when people are breaking the limit in all but the inside lane.
People rarely indicate, and (especially if they have newer/more expensive/flashier cars) a lot of drivers expect everyone else to give way to them, even if the other driver has right-of-way. The same sort of person tends to get in the lane that is moving fastest and then push their way across other traffic to get to where they want to be.
People park inconsiderately because they don't want to walk a few more feet (or pay), blocking/narrowing the road or the pavement, and I've lost count of the times I've seen people park in Disabled or Parent & Child spots who shouldn't be parking there.
If people stuck to the speed limit and showed more consideration for other road users (and pedestrians), there would be a lot fewer accidents. It's not just young drivers.
Have you seen that advert with the car jamming on the brakes with the voice over saying that if he had been going 10mph slower then he would have stopped here (before he hits a child) ?
Next time it's on look at the front wheels - the driver jams on the brakes and he skids almost the entire distance.
Yes 10mph would have caused him to stop in time but so would a car that was equipped with ABS.
I believe that it is still legal to sell new cars in this country that are not equipped with ABS - normally on smaller cheaper cars that young people buy.
Of course it will take some years until the older cars wear out and are replaced ( much like the compulsory introduction of rear seat-belts in the early eighties ) but the sooner ABS is compulsory the sooner we'll start saving lives
The old "Jeremy Clarkson" argument: "better technology means cars that can be driven at higher speeds than the current speed limits allow".
Unfortunately it fails to take into account the fact that a large number of cars aren't fitted with the latest ABS brakes etc, and/or aren't maintained properly.
Not to mention the way that all the safety measures seem to make a large number of drivers feel invunerable, leading to increased risk-taking.
Any driver can cause a fatal accident whether young or not. I believe because of the anti youth driving culture in this country its only the fatal accidents involving young drivers that are highlighted in the media. Remember, it is someone with great driving experience that has given lessons to a new driver, and an examiner who has passed that person as able to drive. Jake the Peg - in the advert you refer to, just a point, but only the front wheels lock on the car in the advert. Have the rear brakes been disconnected for the purpose of the advert? Again, media trying to influence us and maybe corrupting what we see/hear to get a message accross.
Jaydee101. I totally agree with you. I suppose I could be considered an 'older' driver myself at 57 - but I see more horrendous driving by older drivers than I do by the younger ones. Yes, young people will always drive faster but generally their driving is better and they have faster reaction times and more knowledge of how their vehicles handle. A tremendous amount of fatal accidents are caused by elderly drivers who have no regard for anyone else on the road and are oblivious to anything going on around them.
Having said that there are good and bad drivers in every age group.
The vast majority ( I believe 80%) of braking effect comes from the front wheels.
It really is quite simple ABS prevents the brakes from locking which means that cars stop significantly quicker under emergency braking.
In terms of the "Jeremy Clarkeson" argument that better technology doesn't save lives and only encourages people to drive faster you might like to reflect on the fact that in 1930 there were an astonishing 7300 road deaths as compared with 3,431 in 2002.
In fact the UK had one of the lowest road deaths per head of population head up to 2002
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/ documents/page/dft_transstats_031988.pdf
The question was basically - how could more lives be saved on the roads - Insisting on ABS on all new cars would do this and it would cost the taxpayer next to nothing.
The sad fact is that teenagers think they are invulnerable and that life is all about having fun. 99.9% of them go through that phase and come out the other side unscathed and more mature. It's only when tragedy strikes that the authorities, media,and the public start screaming for changes in the law while at the same time putting up with all the unenforcable rules and regulations that already exist. Maybe insurance companies should push up premiums so high as to be unaffordable, but even that may just increase the problem of uninsured drivers?
1 to 20 of 20
