Changes to the driving test....

[Andy665 0]

Just been listening to the proposed / recommended changes to the driving test, which are basically:

 

No passengers between 11pm and 6am for drivers under 25

Zero alcohol limit

Raising minimum age to 18

 

Been thinking about it and think it could / should be far more wide reaching, I think something like:

 

Tiered system, by bhp, say:

 

Tier 1 - Initial limit of 60bhp for two years of passing test - any accidents (deemed to be yor fault) / convictions and you start again in terms of the two year probation

 

Tier 2 - 61bhp - 110bhp - have to be at this leave for min of 12 months with no accidents / convictions

 

Tier 3 - 111bhp - 180bhp - have to be at this leave for min of 12 months with no accidents / max of 3 points

 

Tier 4 - 181bhp - 250bhp - have to be at this leave for min of 12 months with no more than 1 accident / max of 6 points

 

Tier 5 - 251bhp + - reviewed every three years, more than 1 accident and / or 9 points and you get knocked back 1 / 2 levels

 

You would need to pass a more advanced test to progress up the ladder, including skid pan etc at the higher levels

 

All of the above combined with a greatly enhanced police presence on the roads, looking for poor quality driving that won't necessarily be picked up by damned cameras - middle lane hogging, jumping lights etc etc

 

I think that having the right to drive a powerful car on the public road is a not a right but a privilege that needs to be earned

 

Your thoughts /ideas

[andy 0]

I agree with the bit about a greater police presence. We all see dreadful driving every day, I'm all for handing out penalty points for bad driving, just one or two at a time for things like pulling out on someone, driving in the centre lane for no reason. It would soon increase the driving standard imo. Weed out the people who drive consistently badly.

[Jay2 0]

Not sure how popular this would be but how about re-tests every 10 or 20 years?

 

How many people would pass a theory test these days, never mind the full 'mirror, signal.............', etc.

[Fanjita 1]

i suppose your proposed idea sounds like a plan, but for people like myself I would be screwed....

 

I've been driving for just over 2 years now and ive bought myself a VR6 simply because i love motors. I am a fairly sensible driver too, never speeding or had an accident of my own fault. I'd hate to be branded with the chavs because a chav im not! i'm 20 and i think the vr6 is a great bit of fun!

[smee 0]

Not sure about raising the minimum age to 18...if it had been 18 when I left school, I'd have only had a couple of months between my birthday and going to uni (after which I had neither time or money for driving lessons). 17 at least gives a bit more time. What about allowing a provisional licence from 16, but no test til 17, so you could have 12 months practice with a qualified driver before you are even eligable for the test? Not sure if the bhp idea would help either, the proposed changes look aimed to stop young (17-25) drivers killing themselves and/or their mates and I don't think powerful cars are that much of an issue here, more road sense/experience or drink&drugs, at least going by some recent nasty accidents in our area.

[dukest 0]

definitely in favour of more regular testing, every 10 years sounds like a good compromise (because i actually think more often would be better.. every year after turning 70??)

 

don't know if the stepped power restrictions would help much. i know acceleration can get you into trouble all of a sudden, but frankly, my 45bhp R5 was just as likely to kill me once it was going round a 40mph bend at 75mph as my VR is now (ok, ok, much more likely, being made of tin foil...)

 

that said though, i think a 150bhp limit till you're 21 would be no bad thing..

[marcus 0]

Recently there has been debates about the amount of young uninsured drivers on the road.......do you not think MORE rules and regulations will discourage them even more as they wont be able to legally drive the cars they want?...but as a 17yr old, most will just attempt it anyway.

[skinnyman9000 0]

No passengers for people under 25 is ridiculous. Why cant i take the missus out for a nice meal at night? How do my mates get to the pub if they dont drive? If we want to go to the cinema why should be have to take 5 cars? Bloody stupid

[bristolbaron 10]

Only thing i agree with is the zero alcohol limit, but I think this should be the case for drivers of all ages. Why it's now been decided that we have to smoke outside, but we can have a pint before jumping in the car is beyond me..

 

Also, retaking test annually for oldies would be a good idea, as is a retake every 10 years.

 

I passed my test at 18, and the 6 points in first two years thing had come into play.

My first car was a £100 sh!tter of a 1.1 C plate Fiesta. I loved it, and drove it all the time. With the exception of loud music i was fairly sensible.

I then bought a Renault 19, which was 80bhp monster! I didn't know what to do with all the power, it could do 120mph!! So i did it all the time, just because i could!

I got 3 points for 64 in a 40 and 3 points for 70+ in a 40 and lost my licence. I sold the car and didnt retake my test for 18months, partly because insurance was now crazy, partly because i knew i had some growing up to do.

 

I think the high insurance costs and risks of loosing licenses make it tough enough for the majority of young drivers now. To say you cant go out at night is ridiculous.. wouldn't it be better to pull someone over at night because they're driving like a tw@t than it would be to check the age of the driver?

[dr_mat 0]

Zero alcohol limit is unworkable. Too many things result in alcohol in your bloodstream that are beyond your control ..

A very low limit is fine, however ...

 

I can see where they're coming from with the "no passengers" thing, but it is a bit unreasonable.

 

I also think that anything as complex as a tiered system is just not going to work, too much admin, not enough facts. And as has also been pointed out, bhp doesn't really relate to a safer car...

 

I do support the idea of regular testing though. I don't see why people should expect to pass once and never be tested again. Every 10 years would do, but on the proviso that they are not necessarily testing for the *details*, but rather looking at car control, adherance to the law, safe driving, rather than whether your hands are in the right place on the steering wheel..

 

As usual, what's likely to happen is going to be some watered-down version of these "shock headlines". They soften you up first by leaking totalitarian bullshit, and then you don't object so much when they inflict only 50% of it ..

[davidwatsonok 0]

A tiered system would be prohibitively expensive to run and enforce, and would also be unfair. There are many young drivers who are much more capable than older people, especially when you consider some of the much older. Jenson Button was driving in F1 at 19, and Lewis Hamilton is still only 22. Many young people are reckless, irresponsible and a danger to themselves and others, but many are not. If you can control a car to satisfy the test, then you should have the freedom to buy whatever car you want with your own money. That's called freedom. The test could however be made more appropriate, maybe being in two parts with the Pass Plus becoming a requirement allowing for tuition on motorways between Pt.1 and that.

 

The proposed passenger ruling stated "no passengers between the ages of 10-20 between 11pm and 6am. So, why can they take their 9yo sister out, but not their 10yo brother ? Ridiculous ! What happens if they are unavoidably detained whilst out and the time creeps over 11 ? What if they choose to make a sensible decision for a long journey and need to set off earlier than 6am to avoid busier times ? No passengers at all for 6 months might be a better solution.

 

Zero alcohol has been proven to be unworkable. Eat some bread followed by a sugary sweet and you will show trace levels of naturally fermented alcohol in your system a short while later. A reduced alcohol level for everyone can only be a sensible idea. Statistics prove that the majority of drink drivers are over 30 !

 

Raising the minimum age to 18 ? Why ? That one's just an attempt to slightly slow down the growth of traffic on our roads, although young people can mature quite a lot in that one year.

 

Retesting may seem like a good idea, but with 31m drivers currently on our roads that would mean 3.1m more tests a year for the DSA on top of the 2.1m they already do. Such a vast increase in workload would require a massive investment in manpower and infrastructure, increasing test fees and adding to the extremely long waiting lists (currently 9 weeks to book a test in Leeds). Periodic testing of the over 70's would be a very good idea though.

 

I would like to see much more, and increasingly vigilant traffic policing, and not just focussed on speeding. To improve driving standards across all age groups I suggest that the police could issue, instead of meagre fines and inconsequential points (until you have 9), compulsory further training orders. If you are seen indicating badly or changing lanes on a roundabout, you should be pulled and fined £30 to cover police costs, but then be obliged to attend a number of hours training on the relevant subject with a driving instructor. Not only may that cure the initial incidence of bad driving, but a good instructor may spot other dangerous habits in their driving and possible avert future accidents.

 

I would also like to see the Highway Code and Green Cross Code being re-introduced in schools, along with much stricter control on the use of pedal cycles on the public highway. I think the Cycling Proficiency Test should be compulsory, under 14's restricted to 40mph or lower, over 14's must do the full DSA Theory/Hazard Test and an advanced CPT, and have 3rd party insurance. Helmets should be compulsory, as should the fitment of functioning lights.

 

Motorcycles account for just 4% of road traffic, and yet are attributable to 24% of KSI accidents. 37% of those are single person incidents, where the biker kills or harms just themselves. To allow 16yo's on bikes therefore seems ridiculous, and I would like to see that raised to maybe 20, with probationary periods for power increases which can be stepped over with further training and testing.

 

These opinions based on the fact that I am a driving instructor.

[StuartFZR400 0]

10p's worth...

 

Without getting onto bad driving techniques etc, as that applies to ALL age ranges. I presume all this has come about due to large percentage of teenage deaths on the roads. Therefore...

 

Disagree with your Tier system somewhat, but the basics seem good. We already have it on bikes; a learner is restricted to a sewing machine, lol, and I think (not to be quoted) under 21's are restricted a bit too. I couldn't take my direct access until I was 21, but once passed I could ride anything; personally normal joe public should keep it to a max of a 600cc bike a year or 2.

 

So for cars I agree with a BHP limit for newly passed drivers, but only for 1 or 2 years, then onto free reign.

 

As for the age limit going up to 18, whats that going to do? All of us know some very grown up sensible 16 year olds and some of us know some childish 18 year olds. The real problem is what these 17 year olds are setting out to achieve in thier cars...

 

Which leads nicely onto passengers, IMO a good idea in a small way. I think the problem is that too many youngsters are driving thier mates about and getting distracted, trying to impress the new hump-buddy, etc. But the next problem after this is they race thier mates in other cars - which is already illegal. Possibly a nighttime curfew is a good idea - or more Police in proper panda cars.

 

Re-test has been an issues for years. Not a bad idea IMO; after 10 years all of us have a couple bad habbits - 10 to 2 anyone? lol . I think the standard test is TOO EASY. Why not pass that then get re-tested one year later to a higher standard? Within this period allowing a max of 3pts; ie hoping to calm these youngsters down.

 

Why am I FOR the 17 current age; becuase how far can we go with this increase? I know too many mates who drove at age 17 for thier jobs.

 

Will 60bhp stop those kids racing? Maybe... maybe not. Can they still kill themselves at 30mph? I am sure they do still crash thier mums 1.0 City Metro wit hnasty results. But it maybe just enough to save a few more lives.

 

Also, how about enforcing the P plate for that first year too.

 

I just cant see why all these kids wanna race. Mates barely did at that age; I never did. I dont know how these kids afford these 1.6 Corsas etc, with insurance being £2k +. You'd think that'd deter them.

 

I've heard some youngsters having tracker systems on thier car - currently to reduce insurance. Nice idea, just hope it doesnt drift over to the rest of us...

 

-----

Bikes again...

David, what are you onabout? As said, 16 year olds have to be restricted to 30bhp. If they de-restrict that, then they're breaking the law. Dont care for the stats that you mention - I studied stats at reasonable standard an know you can get them to show anything you like*. Speak to bikers or Bike Papers/Magazines and they will tell you that bike deaths are often a cause of external factors/other drivers etc. Ride a bike and find out why they say that. However to be fair to you, yes there are bound to be a good number of deaths due to poor riders ; but its a bike and not a car - consequences are huge and hence so many people choose not to ride. Its your own decision. Going back to kids on bikes - the worst I see are the Chavs on scooters who ride with thier helmets undone and carve up the general public - just an accident waiting to happen; those same kids go onto drive the Saxos. Riding a bike has made me a much safer driver; I only know of one non-biker firend who is close to being road aware as I am.

 

* turning those stats on thier head, it reads as 8.88 percent of KSI accidents are bikes; hardly amazing considering the protection they have; whats the 'super stats' for pedal-cyclists, probably worse. At the end of the day - too many.