Safe Speed Forums

TC001
I'm suggesting that 17 year olds could still pass this test with flying colours, they have good reactions good eyesight etc. But they still would be dangerous not because they are bad drivers but because they have a low fear threshhold.

Perhaps the simulation should give realistic whiplash when you crash it followed by a compulsory 4 weeks of not being allowed on it while you recovered and the car was put back together again

This is a strong point for the simulation, because you can throw a large number of dangerous situations at the driver without incurring real risk:

Driver is always too close, then have the car in front emergency stop with two failed brake lights, or lose it with a blow-out spinning in front of them. Give the driver a simulated high-speed blow out while you are at it.

Driver is always going too fast, then a few pedestrians walking out in front of them from behind vans, oil, mud or black ice on the road on sharp corners. On country roads have a pair of horses just around a blind corner or a tractor with wide trailer filling the road.

I do admit that there will always be an aspect of "computer game" to it, and that 17/21 year olds are fearless, but surely it is better to get them fully involved with interactive education where they are allowed to learn through making mistakes, than it is to have a system that is purely designed to pass the test and then nanny them through restrictions that they will automatically rebel against. Youth will keep rebelling against what appears to be over-controlling restrictions... and sometimes carry on when they are older - like most users of this site in fact, that are still rebelling at what we believe are inappropriate speed restrictions

Yes, I can see how the simulation would help especially the unexpected events which you only encounter if you have been driving for a while.

Well - always been in favour of continuous training. To me - graded assessment (not test) every 5 years might be a carrot to improve - so long as the rewards were desireable - such as reduced premiums for a decent showing in the assessed drive - and may some vouchers to help with maintenance and bits and bobs from the car shops. You have to offer something in return to motivate and make something "desireable" to the average. (I.e. those who just want to get from A to B as safely as possible but are not racing/rally car enthusiasts or genuine self-improvers in the way that most of us on here are. )

As for the "theory test" - our 7 year old already scores 30/35 on average - so it's an easy-peasy test. The hazard test is a computer game, and as such favours those use to playing computer games.

Whilst I agree that these are a good idea, they do not really test. The options are, as IG once pointed out, laughably obvious!

We need something which will stretch a little more - and be realistically achievable on the theory side.

Practical L-test needs a drive on a fast road. Germany includes a test on the A/bahn and gets around the test rubric for those who are not near an A/bahn by testing on a fast road in the locality. They are also tested on country roads as well - and they have to show evidence of a twilight/night drive in learner time. Think you are allowed so many attempts to pass and they call it a day as well.


Support BRAKE's call for extra lessons after the test and would go along with a zero booze tolereance for new drivers - such as the one Germany is now about to introduce (per "radarfalle" and "Spiegel" of October 04.)

Do not support a curfew on young drivers as this would criminalise most young men - they are entitled to go out in the evenings with their mates and girlfriends for drives. My kids school finishes at 4 pm - and if they engage in extra-curricular as they do - it was dark when William drove home in winter months - and I trust my kids anyway.

Case of exercising common sense. Sledge hammer rules don't work!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Personally I think its an issue of attitude, rather then of technical ability with the majority of newly qualified young drivers and that is something that's going to be much more diffiucult to change. If additional lessons were compulsary or desirable in terms of premium reductions etc, how many of them will turn on the 'good driver' mode in order to pass? And then how many that evening will turn the stereo up and have a blast at innapropriate speeds in their 1.1 mean machine?

I had an idea, perhaps more suited to the Brainstorming session but here goes - How about having a £1000 young drivers bond? If they complete 12 months they get it back - but if they have an accident in the first 6 months then they lose it, and an accident between 6 and 12 months would get 50% back. Like I say, its just an idea and perhaps not completely thought out. I propose it to be personal and not vehicular based. Yes it may encourage people to do it illegally, but why do we have to tolerate this? Why not have stiffer penalties rather then the £50 fine they get or whatever at present?

Problem with the bond idea is that it is yet more money being taken from them - they have had to pay for lessons and test, £1000+ insurance, threat of loss of licence for 6 points, and on a low income £50/week for petrol is a lot too. The bond isn't that different from the impact on their insurance premiums anyway. The only thing it is going to do is to encourage more uninsured and unregistered driving. That is for those from middle income and poorer families. The rich brats will have all of the above paid for anyway and won't care about a measily grand. Sorry.

The biggest difference between a bond and insurance is that they will get it back, whereas large insurance premiums they wont. Yes a £1000 is a significant amount of money, but is a small propotion to the amount of money that could be spent on repairing the cars seeing as though most are on 3rd party fire and theft insurance. Also, it seems that most(not all) have plenty of money to attach cherry bomb exhausts and go faster neons on top of all manner of hideous body kits to suggest they can afford a £1000 bond.

There must be something we can do to encourage them to drive safer - money seems to be the best way IMO. I've mentioned this before but this is a more appropriate time, we must also crack down on the amount of young drivers being insured by their mum or dad in order to achieve a lower premium. Having worked for a leading insurance company its amazing how many 40-55 year old women like SR Novas! Oh and of course they just happen to have a 17 year old son who 'may drive it occasionally'. Hmmm sure. Other then the fact 'fronting' is forbidden by insurance companies, it does not act as an encouragement to safe driving since the young person is not going to gain any NCB regardless. For my first years insurance I paid £1500 on a 1.6 Escort, but the second year it would have dropped to £900, only I decided to 'upgrade' to 160BHP RWD car <----- still in my own name which would not have been possible without a years NCB. If young people can't see the long term benefits, then we should perhaps introduce it before they get behind the wheel on their own.

But you have hit the biggest problem in the first place - the cost of life in the UK is ridiculously high in the first place and the cost of motoring is soaring, with HMG doing everything possible to accelerate the costs without providing alternatives. Money is already very tight for most:

40-55 year old Mum (55) puts 17 year old son (17) on her insurance because he has to be mobile to get a job, and because having paid for lessons, test, car, car tax, mot, etc, then it is not surprising that they try to cut costs on insurance. If 17 is also trying to leave home then he is paying rent, food, utilities etc out of a minimal income, considers a Pension as unaffordable, and a Mortgage as totally impossible.

In a few years time when 17 is earning enough money then 17 gets his own policy, but at the cost of delaying Mortgage and Pension still further.

There are a few that after a few years are still living with Mum and Dad, and have a reasonable income, and if they have the inclination will spend some money on tarting up their pride and joy, but the number doing this are a tiny minority (1% or so of age group), and there is no evidence that most of these are are not on their own policies.

Contary to what you are suggesting, not all of them have accidents, and of those that do, the vast majority do not involve injury and are repaired for less than £1000. Such events are the key learning events for their driving.

Do you really think that such people should have to give away £1000 to somebody (presumably HMG - they might love the idea), even if they get it back later? Will it be earning intrest - so they get back say £1060? I think that the monetory pressure is already too high which is why we are seeing the growth in untaxed, uninsured drivers that are perversely increasing the costs higher for everyone else.

I understand what your saying, but I look at personal expierence and see so many newly qualified drivers that have wrote cars of within months, sometime weeks of passing their test. Indeed there is someone I used to work with someone who has had four expensive accidents in six months! Only one was a write-off but the others were still pretty expensive. Another lad has wrote two cars off, someone else has wrote one off. The amount of people I know personally who have had £500+ accidents in their first year as a rough guesstimate must be as high as 60% perhaps. The majority of these accidents have not been through a lack of ability to get safely from A to B, but a bad attitude in doing so. Of the four cars I mentioned, 3 were witten of in SVA's on country roads. Now immediatly extra training springs to mind. But honestly, was that the cause a lack of ability? Or was it a show-off bravado attitude where they push ill-equipped cars far beyond their capabilities? Yes you could train them to better understand where the limits are, and that may have some degree of success but I doubt it would change the fundamental problem. Afterall, you should not really be driving on the limit of braking and grip, but how many will still try and push the boundaries of reserves and exceed them after training?

As for the insurance issue, well in reality if the driver is safe and completes 12 months without a bump, its really false economy to be insured under a parents name if they are the main driver. The next year the premium would drop by a huge amount, probably to much less then the price through a parent. So therefore the extra cash outlay in the beginning reaps rewards further down the line, either in much cheaper premiums or a more powerful car. Also don't forget that an insurance company is well within their rights to refuse to pay out of fronting is unconvered since they are basing their premiums on a 55 year old women rather then a 17 year old lad. Believe me I've had the phone calls saying "You never told me he could only use it for social purposes and not for work everyday, they wont pay out now!" Well, actually I did tell you - several times.

Of course its great to have a car and be mobile and I wouldn't say it's the say it's the financial burden that you make it out to be, altough each persons lifestyle is different. If they are intent on moving out at 17 then yes it would be a struggle, but not many do at that age. More common in my expierence is about 20, or even a year or 2 later. By that time, sticking with the same moderate car the insurance will have fallen to a very low level if its in their own name. I didn't find it particularly difficult to get mobile and I paid for everything myself - lessons, test, car, insurance, repaires, petrol, road tax. - just through a part time job while I studied at college.

I think it is all about attiude.
All the extra traing in the world will not make people better drivers if they have the worng attiute to driving.


A change of focus for instructors and pupils is needed, rather than learning to pass a test.(i belive BSM give instructors a bouns if their pupil passess first time)

We are taught how to drive, and though instructors we can be taught the correct attiude to driving and road saftey.

Example: Rather than saying this a zone, and you must go 40mph, or you are breaking the LAW!!!! and you will fail your test!!!!
The pupil could be encouraged to think about why is a zone and not a . What makes this road different? Or if on a busy road, why it is not practical to drive as fast as .

If taught to think about why they are doing things, rather than you must drive in this way to pass.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

I agree, this is much better than pricing the less affluent off the road.

The only problem I can see, is that there are a large number of limits where I cannot see what the justification for the limit is! Can you imagine the Instructor "Well this nice stretch of dual carraigeway used to be National Speed limit, can you guess why it is now a 40mph limit? (please tell me because I haven't got a clue)".

oh so true, Rewolf. So many speed limits are just

I agree, I was making the assumption that speed limits are logical

If a limit is unreasonble, this could lead to a disscusstion with the pupil why do you think it is unreasonable? What limit would you place?and why?would you change it in wet weather?etc... you could go on.

I am not saying an insturctor should have to Justify limits, just disscuss them with pupils.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Hmmm, I don't really think that's what I was suggesting, if indeed that was aimed at me. I'm all in favour of anyway in which leaner driver education could be improved - but I maintain that a financial incentive* is the only way to get through to many drivers.

*Incentive may on the face of it seem to be the wrong word, but if they were faced with losing £1000 then it's as broad as long. Driving is a responsible thing to do, too many newly qualified drivers have a cavalier attitutude - after all it should be a priveledge and not a right.

To take a different sample, myself and my group of friends who are now aged 23-25, all but one of us qualified when we were 17 or 18, the other when she was 20.

Amoungst this group of people, there have been 8 accidents involving other road users, of which
a. 2 have been 50/50
b. 2 have been the fault of a driver in the sample.
c. 4 have been the fault of the other road user

of the type a accidents:
1 was a collision on a blind corner of an NSL single-track country road in damp conditions. Both drviers took the corner slightly too fast - approx 15mph. (the other driver was a woman in her late 20s/early 30s).
The other was in a car park where the sample driver reversed out of a parking space without looking properly and colided with a driver who was looking over their shoulder at the kids in the back seat.
neither caused any injuries. (the other driver was a woman in her 40s)

of the type b accidents:
1 was one I had: I was driving while tired. I was travelling southbound on the A38, following another vehicle. At this roundabout the driver infront of me (A) went straight ahead, cutting up a driver (B) who was turning right into the residential area from the northbound A38. Driver B was forced to stop, I misinterpreted their not coming accross in front of me to mean that they were going straight ahead, and thus I could also go straight ahead (I do not remember seeing an indicator, although if they were sitll inidcating right it would not have been easy for me to see this). I was obviously wrong, and the front right corner of my car hit the rear-passenger side door of Driver B's car. (the other driver was a man in his early 50s)

The other happened when a friend was lost in Leeds city centre, and clipped another car when changing lanes. I don't know any more details.

Neither caused any injuries.

of the type c addidents:
1 friend was broadsided by a driver who failed to stop at a red traffic light at this junction. Both cars were written off and my friend's passenger suffered a broken ankle. I don't know any more details, other than it was in good weather.

1 friend was rear-ended at this roundabout while giving way to an ambulance traveling with its blue lights flashing but without the siren on. As I understand it, my friend was travelling south on the A38 from Rooksbridge towards the motorway junction, and the ambulance was traveling south on the A370 to join the southbound A38 at this roundabout. The driver that hit my friend was a man, but I don't know what age he was, other than older than my friend (who was 19 at the time). My friend suffered a very minor wiplash injury.

On this NSL single track road I was stationary opposite a passing place to allow a vehicle coming the other way to pass. The driver of this vehicle (a woman in her mid 30s, who was not the most inteligent human I have ever met) was travelling too fast to sucessfully steer her large 4x4 into the passing place without taking out my headlight and indicator in the process. Neither of us were injured and this was settled outside of insurance as it would cost her much more otherwise as the only damage to her car was a scratched bumper.

The fourth accident was when an HGV pulled out to avoid a cyclist into the path of my friend, forcing him to do an emergency stop. The car traveling behind my friend was tailgating and couldn't stop in time. This happened in a 40mph that was until a couple of years ago a 60mph limit, and everyone who knows the road apparently still treats as a 60mph limit. My friend didn't know the road and so was sticking to the speed limit. There were no injuries, but I don't know any details of the other drivers.

In terms of significant single vehicle accients, I know of 3:
One of my friends wrote off her new car in icy conditions (she went through a hedge). She has since said the car was powerful for her (she was 23 at the time), but I don't remember what type of car it was.

A different friend hit a tree at low speed while reversing, and a third friend scraped a few feet along a stone wall after suffering a tyre blowout. The first of these two was the only one that happened within two years of the person passing their test.

Separate from all the above, a friend pulled out infront of a bus while on her first driving test (about 2 minutes out from the test centre) causing it to brake sharply, and a motorist to hit the rear of the bus. My friend failed that test, but passed at the second attempt.


An aquaintence at school wrote of four cars before he finished his A-levels apparently. However, as he was the son of a farmer I suspect these were not (all) on the public road.

My point in all this is that you cannot generalise from a small sample. I grew up and learned to drive in a rural area, none of my friends are into driving cars with the stereo so loud it requires a public performance liscence, and only one has done any modifying of cars - he helps is brother who does stock-car racing occasionally. You cannot tar all young drivers with the same brush.

Of course not, but my personal expierence backs up the statistical evidence to suggest that young people, especially young men, have more accidents then any other age group. There are and always will be excpetions to the rule. I know someone who has regualarly drove a Ferrari from age 18, thanks to his family having compreshensive motor traders insurance. He has never crashed it nor any other car. Just as my sample is a small selection, so is yours - the trend is proven by insurance companies charging higher premiums. It isn't a conspirancy, its simply because of the elevated risk.

Its in no doubt that young lads have the most accidents. What we need to do is find the best way of reducing their risk. I can be pretty confident that its not a lack of ability since they have been deemed adequate to drive by an examiner - it's often(not exclusivly) a behavoiral problem. Now I suggested that money maybe one way of altering that - you may not agree with that, and that's good because you always need a balance of views. Additional training for rewards/discounts was suggested - fair point. IMO though people of all ages can turn on the 'good driver' mode to pass and get the benefits, only a few would actually benefit from this. Pass Plus is just a jolly, I don't know anyone who actually failed it or took more then the minimum 6 hourse. Driver education was suggested. Another good one, but in reality are the lads that are most at risk for crashing really going to be recalling the discussion that they had with their driving instructor about why 35mph is more appropriate then 40 on this stretch of road when they have got 2 wimin in the back and trying to impress them? I was thinking of the most pragmatic solution to the situation - to the sensible mature young drivers it would be unnessasary, but it is difficult to tell them apart during the test.

Good point, the cash bouns may not work, if the person belives they are indestructable, and an expert driver. example



I found this in Annonymous submissions under the title MPH.

anything change this sort of veiw

I do really think it is an attitude issue - which is hard to change.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

That MPH post sounds like the work of someone needing their billy goat fix, though I'm sure there are a few out there who really do think that way. Probably better to try to form the attitudes differently rather than change them after they've been set. IMO pre-driving lessons in schools would be the way to go about it. Wouldn't it be great if young drivers were already safety concious before they ever sit behind the wheel?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

What like completing Cycling Profency Tests in primary school as a sort of "licence" to ride a bike on a public road? Riding my push bike on the public road tought me loads, but now I have moved to an urban area it appears that the rules are different and bikes are only allowed on roads if they are ridden by experts in lycra; everybody else must ride on the pavement - a rule confirmed in many places by cycle lanes sharing the pavement space.

That MPH post sounds like the work of someone needing their billy goat fix, though I'm sure there are a few out there who really do think that way. Probably better to try to form the attitudes differently rather than change them after they've been set. IMO pre-driving lessons in schools would be the way to go about it. Wouldn't it be great if young drivers were already safety c

Hiya Gatsomate!

Agreed. Do try by liaising with schools and targetting youngsters in Y11-Y13. Know the Mad Cats start making their kids safety aware from an early age - and are currently making their twins start looking at driving from driver point of view - even now. Those kids are almost 16, a handful - but then you've "met" the parents on here! - but they have started with the Highwy Code, hazard aware games and go-kart racing to get "feel" of skid and steering control. Noted that they have started allowing them in front passenger seat and they'll ask questions of them during a drive out "to develop a COAST feel."

Worked with their eldest. Have to say it and it's not bias or anything. Reckon they've done a good job there.

Now - if we could just get teachers (apart from Ted's teacher sister and my teacher cousin) to include in "Citizenship" or "PSHE" classes.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.