New Drivers

[rob666]

And if that incident causes a fatality?
We are only talking about a year, not a decade.

The poor american kids can't drink in bars until 21, that is a bigger issue for the poor youth of the planet.

 

[Matt.GC]

0% alcohol doesn't mean that anyone over that has swigged a pint and got into a car.

The reason 0% alcohol limits are not in place is because they are unenforceable. Almost all of us wouldn't have driving licences if they were. I bet many of you with licences will get into a car today with at least a trace of alcohol in your breath, blood, or urine.

It's a myth that the drink drive limit is in place so you can have a few up to a limit before driving. Alcohol can stay in your bloodstream for a good 48-72 hours, long after it's intoxication effects have worn off. Even teetotalers can consume traces in a number of foods and drinks.

If anyone gets in a car today after only having a couple of light ales, or a glass of gin, or swig of wine last night, you will be over 0% today.

 

[delta79]

I think teaching human factors in driving and adding it to the theory test would add knowledge of what factors act on you that change how you drive.

 

[GaryH]

This is why the legislation is coming forward, young male drivers are four times more likely to die or be seriously injured when driving.
Inescapable fact, and a very good reason for the policy...that is being called for by the parents of the dead youngsters...not just legislators.

Death statistics make plain reading.
This will save lives without question.

Come on Rob you and I both know that everything in life carries a risk. It’s part of life. We can try and minimise the risks but it gets to the point of nanny state taking away peoples freedoms. It’s a bit like a road with 100 houses on it and 2 residents complain about the speed limit being too quick, so the council sticks in humps abd lowers the limit to 20.

Instead of addressing the real cause of the problem eg why are people going too fast, why can’t people handle their vehicles, we just penalise everyone else who is able to be sensible. I had friends in the car all the time from the day I passed my test. Did I crash or cause a fatality - no.

Just stick a 60mph limiter on the cars of young people if we are that worried or limit their purchase to a maximum 1 litre engine (pretty much the way these days with insurance costs anyway)

 

[GaryH]

0% alcohol doesn't mean that anyone over that has swigged a pint and got into a car.

The reason 0% alcohol limits are not in place is because they are unenforceable. Almost all of us wouldn't have driving licences if they were. I bet many of you with licences will get into a car today with at least a trace of alcohol in your breath, blood, or urine.

It's a myth that the drink drive limit is in place so you can have a few up to a limit before driving. Alcohol can stay in your bloodstream for a good 48-72 hours, long after it's intoxication effects have worn off. Even teetotalers can consume traces in a number of foods and drinks.

If anyone gets in a car today after only having a couple of light ales, or a glass of gin, or swig of wine last night, you will be over 0% today.

I disagree. When I was in Finland where there is a very strict 0% policy and you are even breathalysed before you hire a vehicle, if I knew I was driving the next day I would either not drink or just have one the day before. I think 0% is achievable and just beds a change in mindset.

 

[Matt.GC]

I disagree. When I was in Finland where there is a very strict 0% policy and you are even breathalysed before you hire a vehicle, if I knew I was driving the next day I would either not drink or just have one the day before. I think 0% is achievable and just beds a change in mindset.

One the day before will still be in your blood stream the next day. It will be negligible but will be above 0. If you drink, I can guarantee you that you have driven with a trace of alcohol in your bloodstream at some point. Maybe even this year, this month, this week, or even today.

 

[rob666]

Come on Rob you and I both know that everything in life carries a risk. It’s part of life. We can try and minimise the risks but it gets to the point of nanny state taking away peoples freedoms. It’s a bit like a road with 100 houses on it and 2 residents complain about the speed limit being too quick, so the council sticks in humps abd lowers the limit to 20.

Other civilised countries are moving the same way.
And how many deaths caused by inexperienced young drivers is acceptable?
Young drivers cause more accidents, especially with other young people in the car.
Twelve moths limited driving sounds very sensible to me.

 

[Matt N]

Dual Carriageways and Motorways are made out to be these big scary roads. But it's an old wives tale, that encourages unwarranted mind talk and unnecessary anxiety. You pretty much drive in a straight line and encounter fewer hazards than on other roads. Sure, driving fatigue is an issue, and at higher speeds accidents can be more severe, but you're also far less likely to have one in the first place. I know you're not alone in thinking this, I know people who will drive anywhere but on a motorway or dual carriageway. But statistically, you are far more likely to die on a country lane than you are on a motorway. Town and country driving is stressful, main road driving is actually a breeze when you think about it.

I only just realised I didn’t reply to this comment earlier @Matt.GC. Sorry about that!

I have two reasons for not liking dual carriageways and particularly motorways, and I personally completely disagree that they’re the easiest kind of road to drive on. My first reason is that I personally get a bit intimidated driving at the type of speed required on a national speed limit stretch of motorway or dual carriageway. I start to get nervous driving at much above about 60-65mph, and the bits of the motorway where I honestly feel most comfortable are the bits where it’s limited to 50mph and there are speed cameras, such as over Newport. The main reason I don’t like motorways, though, is because I hate changing lanes and overtaking, and you have to do the former in particular quite a bit on the motorway due to things like filter lanes. Having to make rapid decisions like that while maintaining speed is something I find very difficult and intimidating, which is why I largely avoid overtaking unless absolutely necessary (e.g. to go around a cyclist or something similarly slow moving that would potentially be unsafe to stay behind). I’ve been stung in my driving tests in the past by poor lane changing decisions, which might not help, but I absolutely do not like it and would try and avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

I’m trying to get better on the motorways, and have only driven on the motorway 3 times thus far, but I still don’t like them, and would always take a regular local road over a motorway, personally. It might help that I had a driving instructor who had a liking for very rural roads and made me do a lot of town driving in preparation for my test, but I feel somewhat desensitised to town driving, local roads and even country lanes to some degree (I still don’t like the really narrow ones, but the ones that are, say, 1.5 cars’ width aren’t even that bad provided you keep to the left and slow down a little when something is passing you). City driving is still awful, with all the confusing traffic lights and confusing road layouts, but I don’t find a regular town that bad.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

One the day before will still be in your blood stream the next day. It will be negligible but will be above 0. If you drink, I can guarantee you that you have driven with a trace of alcohol in your bloodstream at some point. Maybe even this year, this month, this week, or even today.

I disagree. When I was in Finland where there is a very strict 0% policy and you are even breathalysed before you hire a vehicle, if I knew I was driving the next day I would either not drink or just have one the day before. I think 0% is achievable and just beds a change in mindset.

The body naturally produces ethanol, as a by product of digesting food, you will never have a blood stream with 0% alcohol. Those who suffer with ABS will have a higher level than most.

Surprisingly I'm more aligned with @GaryH, when it comes to restrictions on newly qualified drivers. I can see a case for some restrictions, but these proposed measures don't appear to actually tackle the problem. If accidents and incidents of unsafe driving are happening, then we need to address that in the learning phase. Introducing a minimum requirement for hours on the road, of both instructed driving and supervised driving, before the ability to take a test would be one way of doing this. We could also look at if the driving exam itself needs revisiting, or restructuring. Learner drivers have been able to use the motoroway since 2018, but motorway driving still isn't covered in the driving exam.

The proponents of these measures are insurance companies. They don't actually care about safety, they care about reducing the chances of having to pay out on a claim, and they want to do it the easiest way possible, not the best way. It's not about risk mitigation for them, it's about payout mitigation. Whilst it is measurably safer in the short term, to have restrictions on newly qualified drivers, it doesn't mean that it's safer once those restrictions come off.

Restrictions on the newly qualified is the clearest demonstration that the training isn't fit for purpose. Training is what we should be focussing on.

 

[Matt N]

We could also look at if the driving exam itself needs revisiting, or restructuring. Learner drivers have been able to use the motoroway since 2018, but motorway driving still isn't covered in the driving exam.

You raise some good points, but the issue with this one is that there are large parts of the country that are too far from a motorway to feasibly allow for motorway lessons. If you live in Cornwall, West Wales, Norfolk, the highlands of Scotland or somewhere similarly remote, you could be hours away from the nearest motorway, which is simply an unfeasible distance to travel in a driving lesson.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

You raise some good points, but the issue with this one is that there are large parts of the country that are too far from a motorway to feasibly allow for motorway lessons. If you live in Cornwall, West Wales, Norfolk, the highlands of Scotland or somewhere similarly remote, you could be hours away from the nearest motorway, which is simply an unfeasible distance to travel in a driving lesson.

I'm going to be a bit harsh here and say tough. I don't think that living far away from a motorway is a good enough excuse in this particular scenario. Driving and navigating a 2 tonne hunk of metal, at fast speed, through complex traffic is regularly part of the experience; of course it should be on the test, especially if you're now able to learn on it. If this is really about safety, then it's absolutely a must, without question. If you're not able to learn on it, and you're not able to be tested on it, then you shouldn't be on it.

In the scenarios you've suggested, it might be that the individual has to travel to a different area, in order to secure the relevant training and experience.

 

[Matt N]

I'm going to be a bit harsh here and say tough. I don't think that living far away from a motorway is a good enough excuse in this particular scenario. Driving and navigating a 2 tonne hunk of metal, at fast speed, through complex traffic is regularly part of the experience; of course it should be on the test, especially if you're now able to learn on it. If this is really about safety, then it's absolutely a must, without question. If you're not able to learn on it, and you're not able to be tested on it, then you shouldn't be on it.

In the scenarios you've suggested, it might be that the individual has to travel to a different area, in order to secure the relevant training and experience.

I’m not saying it’s insurmountable, but it is arguably discriminatory, for lack of a better term, for people who don’t live near the motorway. It would make learning to drive more time-consuming and expensive for them in a way that it wouldn’t for someone living nearer to a motorway.

One flaw of the driving test is that it will never be able to test you on every type of road simply due to the fact that the test is done in one test centre and its immediate locality. Someone doing their test in inner-city London or Birmingham won’t really be able to encounter one-track country lanes, for example, and as someone who did their test in Monmouth, a relatively rural town, I never really encountered big city driving, of the ilk you find in Bristol, Newport, Cardiff or other big cities, during my lessons or driving tests. For some people who live in really remote areas in the remote North, South, East or West of the country, that driving test blind spot will unfortunately be dual carriageways and motorways.

I can’t really think of a way to get around this unless you split the test into multiple different tests done at multiple different centres, and I can’t imagine that being terribly feasible given that they’re already struggling to clear the backlog of people only needing one test…

 

[GaryH]

Dual carriageway driving isn’t too different to motorways. It’s 70mph, utilised slip roads, overtaking, thinking ahead etc. motorways tend to just be another road bit of you can drive safely on a dual carriageway I can’t see why anyone couldn’t drive on a motorway. It’s just about thinking ahead.

 

[WillPS]

Do you have some references for these motorway incidents involving young drivers @GooseOnTheLoose ?

The number of incidents on motorways as opposed to rural or urban roads is absolutely tiny.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Do you have some references for these motorway incidents involving young drivers @GooseOnTheLoose ?

The number of incidents on motorways as opposed to rural or urban roads is absolutely tiny.

I haven't made any claims about motorway incidents involving young drivers.

I said (embarrassingly with a typo):

Learner drivers have been able to use the motoroway since 2018, but motorway driving still isn't covered in the driving exam.

My source for the above is:

Learner drivers on motorways from 4 June 2018

Learner drivers can take motorway driving lessons with an approved driving instructor from 4 June 2018.

www.gov.uk

 

[WillPS]

I haven't made any claims about motorway incidents involving young drivers.

I said (embarrassingly with a typo):

My source for the above is:

Learner drivers on motorways from 4 June 2018

Learner drivers can take motorway driving lessons with an approved driving instructor from 4 June 2018.

www.gov.uk

Yes, but what's the issue with this?

Newly qualified drivers used to always have no experience of motorways when they first try one. Now they typically still do.

My challenge to you is, what's the problem with that? The fundamental rules are no different there than anywhere else - you keep left, overtake when safe to do so and then return to the left, stick to stated speed limits, don't drive in closed lanes etc etc... motorway junctions are far easier to manage than typical A road equivalents because they're so spread out.

I don't see any evidence anecdotal or otherwise that young drivers are causing problems on the motorway, so why disenfranchise learner drivers who have no realistic chance of practicing driving on one?

 

[John_P]

All I can see with this is them saying younger drivers aren't as safe, yet a policy like this could see more of them on the roads in their own cars driving too and from the same locations.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I don't see any evidence anecdotal or otherwise that young drivers are causing problems on the motorway, so why disenfranchise learner drivers who have no realistic chance of practicing driving on one?

I was referring to the original question, which was "should newly qualified drivers face additional restrictions on their licence?"

I was making an argument that if the proponents of the legislation, insurance companies, actually cared about people's driving ability and confidence, then they probably ought to be pushing for additional training. I specifically highlighted motorways because it is where the average driver will eventually spend a large chunk of their time, but without any prior experience.

It seems illogical that new drivers could be prevented from having passengers in the car (despite always only ever having one up until the point of passing their test), yet face no restrictions on something they don't have first hand experience with (motorway driving).

It's about minimising payout risk for insurance companies, not driver quality, training or safety.

I don't see any evidence anecdotal or otherwise that young drivers are causing problems on the motorway

Statistics for road traffic accidents / incidents, involving newly qualified drivers, do not isolate or distinguish motorway use.

 

[MAC]

Motorway lessons before new drivers can go on a motorway should be mandatory. Joining the motorway and judging speeds I found difficult to begin with.

What’s the view on new drivers displaying P Plates - again I think this would help.

Where did everybody drive to on their first solo trip after passing their tests?

 

[Matt.GC]

Where did everybody drive to on their first solo trip after passing their tests?

Car insurance phone numbers used to be listed in magazines, newspapers, and the phone directories back then. After calling a few for some quotes as soon as I got home from passing, I was on the M5 within the hour in my 1984 1.3ltr MK2 Astra.