Younger drivers - Posts split from Type R insurance

[harleyfatboy]

Pottsy.. Teach him of his errors ...first off you cannot assume the problem is all male... maybe largely but not all the blame can be laid there , i have seen female drivers personally drive like their v/;,']#.ty depended on it ..back to the point criminals offend are sent to the big house to find religion or repent ...stat time coming up ...more go back than learn not to reaffend...Graphical aids to drive the point home ...Drink driving , aids , car accidents , its out there in the domain but nobody gives a damn , sensory apathy man ....the film has been run so many times..... nobody goes to the drive in anymore...I for one agree with your thinking but there is no definitive answer unless laws are passed and surely if the powers to be were that concerned there would be procedures in place by now...ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[Unknownsoldier]

Just let them smell the scene of an accident, should put them off for life. Talk to a family, or the driver of the other vehicle.

Tom

[harleyfatboy]

Unknownsoldier ....Im with you on that man ...But some... not all just dont recieve ... dont matter how hard you transmit...ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[Jack The Lad.]

J. Clarkson annoys me, when he goes on about how safe a car is.
Nothing wrong with speed, he has often said, -- This latest 911, is capable of stopping from 100 mph, in half the time it takes a Ford Fiesta to stop from doing 50mph.
He never mentions anything about the reaction times of the possible silly s-d driving it.

[Vet_2010]

I have never denied the statistics and if you read my first post you will see that I supported them. My problem is with blanket statements that people my age should not be allowed cars such as the Type-R simply because of their age. Like Pottsy said, it’s not the car that is the problem it is the driver.
I agree that there should be restrictions when you first pass, in fact I was subject to such restrictions. Here in Northern Ireland you are restricted to 45mph for the first year after you pass your test and have to display 'R' plates to let people know you are a newly qualified driver. I had no issues with this what so ever, yes it can be annoying and in some instances dangerous to be doing 45mph on a motorway but I appreciated I needed to gain more solo driving experience and it was much safer to do so at 45mph than the national speed limit. Whether it be a Type-R or a Clio, I still would have been restricted to 45mph and would have gained the same experience.
I personally think that restrictions similar to those in Northern Ireland would be far more beneficial to newly qualified drivers than restricting what cars they can drive.

[Dimplyred]

I think it is a very good idea restricting the speed for the first year.

Consequently there would be no problem restricting new drivers to a lower powered car.

[Unknownsoldier]

Exactly

Tom

[harleyfatboy]

Dimplyred...Utopia ...The perfect condition , perfect world , call it what you like .... Reality exists we know because every second of our lives we are part of it .... Even if you did restrict cars the power is still on hand to maim , kill , injure , ....You dont need a pool to drown in , find a fairly deep puddle face your a;'#e to the sun same result ....Personaly i dont know the answer ....But you do not castigate every young driver to be scapegoats for the single cell few.... That might be a start , but it is a stitch where we need a zip.....ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[sushi_chef]

I have been reading this thread with great interest over the last few days and it's an excellent debate.
I agree with some previous comments about the statistics but putting these aside I'd like to look at it from a different angle.
First of all lets consider what might make someone a good / low risk driver a poor / high risk driver?
Age / maturity? Common Sense? Experience? Level of advanced driver training? General level of health / fitness? Knowledge of Highway Code?

If we take the above 6 variables we can grade them from 1 - 5 with 1 being the lowest risk and 5 being the highest.

Now lets take some example drivers

Driver A: 21 years old (4) Lots of common sense (1) Experience, not much (4) Done sone advanced courses (3) Health / Fitness, Excellent (1) and only a couple of years after passing test has a good knowledge of the highway code (2)
Overall Score 15

Driver B: 38 years old (2) No common Sense (5) Experience, plenty (2) No Advanced courses (5) Health / Fitness, average (3) Not read the highway code since before his test (3)
Overall Score 20

Obviously you could go on for ever with hypothetical examples.

The point that I am trying to make is that being a "good driver" takes in to account a lot of factors and all of those factors count. If someone said to me, "sushi, theres a 21 year old driver and a 38 year old driver, who's the biggest risk?" I would say the 21 year old driver, the example above shows that this may not be the case.

So, whilst it may be wrong to strerotype younger drivers, people may often stereotpe by basing their opinion on the limited information that they have, rightly or wrongly.

[harleyfatboy]

Sushi chef ..Welcome man ..You have added another valid , constructive ,thought process to this debate...Its nice to open up issues once in a while ...although we might not be able to do much about it personally , we might better understand the problem rather than some people who just point and squirt ...ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[HappyMan]

Originally Posted by sushi_chef

I have been reading this thread with great interest over the last few days and it's an excellent debate.
I agree with some previous comments about the statistics but putting these aside I'd like to look at it from a different angle.
First of all lets consider what might make someone a good / low risk driver a poor / high risk driver?
Age / maturity? Common Sense? Experience? Level of advanced driver training? General level of health / fitness? Knowledge of Highway Code?

If we take the above 6 variables we can grade them from 1 - 5 with 1 being the lowest risk and 5 being the highest.

Now lets take some example drivers

Driver A: 21 years old (4) Lots of common sense (1) Experience, not much (4) Done sone advanced courses (3) Health / Fitness, Excellent (1) and only a couple of years after passing test has a good knowledge of the highway code (2)
Overall Score 15

Driver B: 38 years old (2) No common Sense (5) Experience, plenty (2) No Advanced courses (5) Health / Fitness, average (3) Not read the highway code since before his test (3)
Overall Score 20

Obviously you could go on for ever with hypothetical examples.

The point that I am trying to make is that being a "good driver" takes in to account a lot of factors and all of those factors count. If someone said to me, "sushi, theres a 21 year old driver and a 38 year old driver, who's the biggest risk?" I would say the 21 year old driver, the example above shows that this may not be the case.

So, whilst it may be wrong to strerotype younger drivers, people may often stereotpe by basing their opinion on the limited information that they have, rightly or wrongly.

You make some valid and interesting points but the problem is we have to start somewhere and generally that beginning is with statistics - whether they are accurate or not - we start there because we understand numbers. I guess the problem with the age thing is that because statistically speaking one age group is considered to be a higher risk than the other it doesn't take in to consideration the individual as it would be impossible to create a system that would be able to cope with this.

So we are left with a system that is based on the majority and penalises the minority - but how do you change it?

Personally I think we should all have to undergo refresher courses every ten years or so - not retake out test but some kind of course that measures our ability to ensure we are still driving within the law and are still competent to drive. Maybe through the course you could be graded and that grading could be reflected in insurance premiums - maybe this would be fairer to the person rather than to age group you sit in. In this way if you obtain a lower grade, even if you are in your 30's and have been driving for many years, then maybe your insurance premium would be higher and more reflect your competence rather than your perceived competence.

[harleyfatboy]

Happyman ...You say its not a test but a course to grade you ....Same thing man ....results to follow ......And when you attended this course with say 6 penalty points and your grade was very possitive and then you contacted your insurance company how do they work this out ...your premium reflected the points you had then , now you turn up with a gold star do you expect them to say well done we will knock a hundred pounds off because you have proved to somebody how good you are..... because human nature says you will want to cut a deal .....and them greedy b'#[,;=-#ds will say leave it man were earning money off you......and how about if you dissagree with the results what then....And who pays for this if its us or the government because the way i see it i spent enough money to get my license ,and i was told by the man your cool well done youve passed ...And what do you do with those who dont come up to scratch ...because if you deem them dangerous to themselves and others its not a course..... it becomes a test...ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[Dalboy]

Surely the difference between a course and a test is.
If you make mistakes in a test you fail.
If you make mistakes during a course you are told, and instructed how to correct them.

[Topcat]

The fact that Insurance is so costly for young drivers proves they are classed as a high risk, if they drive carefully an collect no claims discount well done to them.

If someone has points then they have done something wrong and should pay for that in their insurance premium until the points are removed, if someone committed a murder and was a model prisoner for a few months in jail you wouldnt expect them to be let back out on the streets until they had finished their punishment.

No matter what, inexperienced drivers ARE higher risk than someone who has been driving for a good few years and is more aware of roads, speed and most importantly learning to calculate what some other idiot is about to do on the road.

[TTDegs]

Having just read the entire 7 pages in one sitting, I'm not entirely sure what all the discussion is about to be honest!


Everyone seems to agree that inexperienced drivers are more likely to have accidents.
No one is disputing that insurance companies class young drivers as inexperienced.

Statistically, young drivers are inexperienced.

However, there will always be exceptions to statistics.
There will be the 17year old who passed thie test yesterday, but has spent every single weekend since he was 12 racing go-karts around the world. His (using the generic male descriptive, not implying that they have to be male) speed perception and car control are probably pretty good. Granted, he will need some extra on normal road hazards.

And conversley, there will be some like a guy I work with.
Mid forties, been drving for MANY years, and since I've known him (10 years plus) has always driven nice, and powerful, cars.
Doesn't stop him from trying to 'prove a point' at the lights after every meeting, and indeed, all his years of experience didn't tell him that driving through a deep puddle would rip his bumper off.

Neemster, as the original poster, seems to me to fit into the exception category - he's probably done more miles back and fore to Uni than many 'experienced' drivers do in a year.

The trouble (for him) is that there is no way to prove that to the insurance cos.


Regards restricting new drivers - yes.
They've been doing this on 'bikes for years.
Farily complex set of rules, but basically, if you're young and inexperienced, you're restricted to a certain amount of power for a year after passing your test.
(not to mention a smaller power whilst learning).

But trying to find something along these lines which works and can be enforced is very difficult

[harleyfatboy]

Dalboy ... Granted . but if you are not capable of say reversing because your neck e.g has arthritis which you did not have when you were younger prevents you from looking behind you when you reverse and as such you keep mounting the pavement where the young girl has a baby in a pram and you hit it the pram ?...Because if you hit the kerb or mount it in a test its a fail ... but on a course thats gradeable . Because this is a course not a test...How about reaction time... how do you improve on that ....That can be a killer ... Say we ally that with vision which as we get older unless you are blest everyones vision deteriates... Speed perception as a biker i know for a fact if someone is at a junction and i am approaching it they have no idea how fast i am travelling ...So if we get all three of these in a person because its been a few years since they done something like this and they dont cut the mustard.... its gradeable .... not failable ... as it would be on a test ...Let me tell you if i was in the last catagorie i would not even be in a car... ON A STEEL HORSE I RIDE

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by Topcat

if someone committed a murder and was a model prisoner for a few months in jail you wouldnt expect them to be let back out on the streets until they had finished their punishment.

You obviously have no idea about the British penal system now, murder is now I think just a 60 pound FPN [Sarcasm off ]

Tom

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by Unknownsoldier

You obviously have no idea about the British penal system now, murder is now I think just a 60 pound FPN [Sarcasm off ]

Tom

Silly Me I was thinking back to the old days

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by harleyfatboy

Dalboy ... Granted . but if you are not capable of say reversing because your neck e.g has arthritis which you did not have when you were younger prevents you from looking behind you when you reverse and as such you keep mounting the pavement where the young girl has a baby in a pram and you hit it the pram ?...Because if you hit the kerb or mount it in a test its a fail ... but on a course thats gradeable . Because this is a course not a test...How about reaction time... how do you improve on that ....That can be a killer ... Say we ally that with vision which as we get older unless you are blest everyones vision deteriates

This is exactly why I said a test should be introduced for older people and taken every year or two - I know a few old people that should not be on the road anymore.

[Unknownsoldier]

Uhuh, like my nan, she doesn't go on the road anymore hmmmmm

T