Avert your eyes, Michael...

Isaac I almost totaly agree...

Except the intensive course bit, which I did for my bike and TBH because its everyday constant tuition bad habits are les likely to form. The police use intensive training all be it with people who already drive.

Education is the key here and aditional training/exams would cut down on accidents.

Personally anyone who takes more than 3 attempts to pass should probably never be on the road. That stupid Mo woman from that documentary who had failed 7 or 8 times clearly was never going to be a good driver? My sister is very scary, dare not take her eyes from the front to look in her mirrors. These type of people fluke a pass because they have taken so many tests, re testing eyery 3-5 years would weed these people out or encourage then to seek further training.

The biggest risk is the young lad with his modified (read insurance void) car with a testosterone fed ego showing off to his mates. I get em smoking me at lights, overtaking in 30's and 40's ect, just so they can tell their mates they beat a xxx the other day in their nova xr sport rs.

Speed isn't the issue, its inapropriate use of and an advanced test as Isaac says would go a long way to stoping this. the basic rule of 'able to stop safely on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear' is ignored by most.

Much of the advanced test is basic stuff from the DVLA test that people choose to ignore after passing. They drive too close, they dont leave a gap between them and the car in front when stopping at lights etc and why do people drive with one hand on the gear stick - they've given up half the control of the car!!

RoSPA re test every 3 years btw, and people with different levels should be alowed different priveledges in terms of cars alowed to drive, it works for bikes where a probationary amount of horsepower is given according to experience.

 

Bottleneck I bet you wouldn't be in the minority, but I hope hat never happens, what about people like me who take their cars on a track? The ones who are the biggest danger are the same ones who will un limit the car!

You can drive dangerously at 30 or less, I've been overtaken on crossings in town centres which I think is more dangerous than me doing 100+ on a b road with miles of visability. I have had performance training and have a RoSPA qualificatin and only ever break the limit on derestricted roads when apropriate.

 

I'm not sure about the bit about more than 3 attempts to pass...

I passed my L test on the third try. My first one was my best drive and I was failed on what I still think was a rather silly technicality (stop line with no visibility between two close parked cars... rolled over at a few mph to stop where I could actually start to see something) and my second one I was not feeling very well and had a bad day (ending up stuck in a box junction). Third one I passed on the same route as my first only because I knew about this technicality, but I picked up 50% more minors than I had the first time around. So in terms of being able to drive vs being able to pass the test I'm not sure that the correlation is too good.

Funny that it was my friends at school who had taken the 1-week intensive courses and given a new car by mummy and daddy who drove like maniacs with no respect or mechanical sympathy... I was overtaken by one of them into a corner (very much as if on a track) in a CAR PARK! His comment... "Well, you've got to get ahead haven't you?". My driving was much more moderate (far from perfect, but I never did the boy racer stuff) despite driving the most powerful vehicle among my peers (since it was my parent's car among other things... they'd not have been too happy had I done something to it). In general it seemed that the other people who learned to drive over a longer period were more moderate in their approach to it.

 

It is very easy to fail a test today on a minor technicality.

I actually failed my first test for NOT driving in a bus lane. No one else was using it, and there was a small sign staing the hours somehwere. There was no reason not to use the other two lanes. There definately is no subsitute for practice, i used to drive to and from school, and did trips up to norfolk etc with my dad when possible.

There are some real idiots on the road, the other day I turned of a main road admittedly quite briskly, and accelerated, only to find some arse behind me in a 106 gti, driving exceptionally close. So I backed right off. we were getting to a sharp/ blind corner, and i could clearly see lights coming the other way, peogeut boy preceded to overtake at the blind corner, not noticing the lights from an oncoming car about to come round the corner. He very, very nearly hit the other car head on. Shocking

 

I don't think it was the quick pass course that made them reckless but the fact their cars were easily aquired. I couldn't afford a car till I was 24 and worked bloody hard for it, yes I drove it too fast (who doesn't until you learn better) but respected it and didn't take silly riscs cause it was hard come by.

I did a quick pass bike test but I'm far from reckless.

 

actually, it might seem draconian, but I'd implement the following (if I was able)

* under 25 year olds, max engine size 1 litre 125cc
* GPS speed-tracking units in all cars. Exceed the speed limit by 30mph and you automatically get ticketed/court action (except on a race track)
* license length 10 years. necessary to re-take license every 10 years, every 2 years when you reach 70.
* artificial speed limiter on all cars (100mph).
* Track vehicles to be kept at specific locations


I've never driven over 100mph, and think its way too fast. I know Im in the minority in my age group to think like this, but thats ok!

 

Chris, not all accidents are speed related. Statistically, the Motorways are and always have been the safest roads in the UK. Due mainly to the lack of junctions of course.

 

That is true of course.

However speed is a contributing factor in many accidents, and of course is THE major determining factor in the severity of an accident when it happens.

 

Driving into my cul-de-sac at 30 (totally legal) is more dangerous than me doing 120 (double the limit) on a derestricted road with good visability.

A child will die (or be seriously injured) on my street hit by someone not speeding but inapropriatly doing the limit! It wont be me!

 

Thus increasing your chances to live to be an old man

 

Speed does not kill!
Its the sudden stopping that does.

 

Unless you get hit by someone doing 99mph in a 30

 

Chris... have to disagree on a few points.

Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills. And inappropriate speed can still be easily within the speed limit if conditions are poor or children are around, etc.

With regards to restriction to specific engine sizes for under 25s... I don't think that would achieve anything. You'll still get stupid boy racers in their 1.1 litre saxos, but you'll stop young people driving their parent's cars. When I passed my test at 17 I had no need whatsoever for my own car, but I got a lot of driving experience in my parent's car. Of course, under your system that wouldn't be possible because it's got a 3 litre engine. After university I bought my car which has a 2 litre engine. Again not possible under your scheme. There are no estate cars on the market that would fall into your scheme and I've relied on the practicality of mine a great deal. So I would have missed out on a great deal of driving experience and then be lumbered with a car that does not meet my needs, without doing anything that will impact foolish driving.

The solution is only going to be in better education and training, and unfortunately that is currently optional.

Have you taken any further driving tuition since passing your L test Chris?

 

How many would pass the theory test? Why not give it a go? I got 35 although one was a guess TBH
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Diol1/DoItOnline/DoItOnlineArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4017669&chk=+/Q4R8

 

Remember a couple fo years ago,a driver was jailed for driving 25 in a 30.Why? because he knocked a child down outside a school.the judge said clearly the speed limit is just that,you SHOULD DRIVE AT THE SPEED THAT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

Also,a village full of leaf eaters campaigned for a speed trap outside their village to catch all the reckless desperados who 'speed' past their houses.They then had to campaign for its removal because 85% of those caught were from the village itself.

 

Have to say the one thing which really, really winds me up as a motorist is being stuck behind soe one who drives out of town at 45 and breaks for every bend but as soon as they reach the safety of a 30 limit feel they can confidently drive at 40+. If you aren't confident to drive safely out of town how on earth can you feel confident to speed in town?

 

Nope!

The kind of scheme I am putting forward would be compulsory - no-one is going to voluntarily re-do their driving test..

I suppose I could have done some sort of advanced driving course, but since I rarely exceed the speed limits and leave large gaps in traffic etc, its unlikely I'd ever have call to use the skills.

I dont believe young persons should be able to drive their parents car if that car is large and powerful. That belief (if it held any power which it of course doesnt) might make it difficult for some people to drive, but you cant have an engine restriction on young people and allow exceptions.

Restrictions like the one I'm suggesting always seem unfair at the time. I would have been very negative about my own ideas when I was 24. Getting older though, I see more of a need to curtail young male drivers than I did when I was at that kind of age myself. I was blinded by my own preferences if you like.

I agree entirely about inappropriate speed. Of course, one measure of inapropriate speed is the speed limit. As you know they set the speed limit according to the limitations of the road and the safety implications of that road. I would say that driving 30mph over the speed limit is always an inapropriate speed.

In terms of powerful cars per se (for anyone) I've always been bemused by the contradiction. Why have speed limits of 70mph if you are going to allow cars on the road that can do 140mph or even 200mph? Isnt this a little like outlawing cocaine and then selling crack cocaine in high street stores?

Like I said, theres no way my views are ever likely to become law, but I still hold them.

 

Hypocrisy?

 

TBH I did my most reckless driving in my first car - a 1977 Ford Fiesta 1.1L. I drove like a twat and the engine size, lack of real brakes, poor chassis, lack of head rests, dodgy construction and terrible suspension didnt not affect my desire or ability to drive fast and recklessly. Though I only had one accident - pulling away at traffic lights the guy in front braked and I ran into the back of him.

I'm not sure speed bumps help as they also slow down ambulances. Chicanes and stuff seem to present a challenge to the boy racer. Speed cameras do nothing to stop people who are already driving illegally in a car not registered to their address (lots of people). In some ways it's difficult to see how legislation will make all that much difference.

One area of interest though are some of the new techniques being employed in some parts of Europe and I think on their way here - psychologically targeted highway designs - eg. as you approach a school the road rises is now made from the same block paving as the footpath, no curbs, different colour to the tarmac leading to it. The intention of suggesting you are actually somehow driving through the school and of course you would want to slow down. The idea being you should automatically feel uneasy if you didnt slow down, that you feel conscious the rules and boundaries have changed and are unclear - all designed to put the emphasis upon the driver to respond to a change in the highway.

I do sometimes think this country presents too clear a picture to the driver - in the main everything is very obvious and nannylike - big signs, massive sliproads, high curbs, clear lines, wide roads. The effect is to leave the driver feeling cocooned and dominant over pedestrians, less in touch with what speed they are actually driving at. I think UK driver manners demonstrate this - I find people seem disconnected from other cars around them, unwilling to let people cross the road even when they are in a queue driving at 5mph, etc. Though as far as I know our road death count is pretty good compared to the rest of Europe and you must agree it's inevitable some people will be killed on the roads each year.

I found driving in urban areas in France encouraged me to drive more slowly - not because of driving on the wrong (yes wrong) side of the road, but because there were various measures which left me feeling more in touch with the environment around me and more aware of my speed.

 

Spot on Paul.

The "40mph Brigade" are one of the greatest dangers on the road and need to be taught to drive properly.

The national speed limit was not introduced for safety reasons AFAIK but due to the fuel crisis in thr seventies. If it was deemed safe for a Ford Consul to accelerate and brake to and from 70mph, it stands to reason that a modern car with ABS, ESC, TC and all other electronic aids would be safe to a considerably greater speed.

My impression is that large 4x4's around town are a far greater menace and threat to life than any car doing 120mph on thr M40.