• UK may introduce one-year 'learner stage' for new drivers under 19
    50 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792[/url] [quote]Teenagers could have to wait a year longer than currently before they are allowed to take their driving test. The government is considering issuing only 12-month probationary licences at the age of 18 in a bid to cut accidents involving young motorists. New drivers would also face a curfew between 22:00 and 05:00 unless a passenger aged over 30 was in the vehicle. Ministers are due to publish proposals in a Green Paper following a report by the Transport Research Laboratory. It recommended a one-year "learner stage" during which drivers would have to total at least 100 hours of daytime and 20 hours of night-time practice under supervision.[/quote]
If it brings down insurance costs, why not. I hope it does anyway, but it probably wont.
it sorta works here in canada
[QUOTE=smurfy;42482337][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24485792[/url][/QUOTE] This sounds like our "L-platers" in Aus...
Here in Mississippi we have Class-Y licences that work like this. As part of carrying the licence, you're not to operate a motor vehicle between 21:00 and 05:30 without a good reason, such as participating in school, church, or government functions. Before this, we have Class-P licences that have the above stipulations, but require that you have a licenced driver over the age of 21 with you at all times you are operating a motor vehicle. You must have a Class-P licence for like 6 months without incident to get a Class-Y licence, which you must have for a year without incident to get a Class-R licence. We also have Hardship licences which are for anyone 14 years or older that works, or has had their licence suspended. It's treated like a Class-R license, except you may only use it for very explicit circumstances as specified by the results of your hardship petition.
As a young driver i'm kind of divided about this, I prefer the idea of having either a full license and be 100% fully qualified or not. There shouldn't really be a greyish area/ middle ground in licensing something that not only affects you but hundreds of other people around you on the road. If you have to stick p-plates on your car after you passed you shouldn't really be driving. That way you can be fully sure that everyone else on the road is at the same level of skill or above that depending on years of experience. How about raising the standard of the tests instead? Also £20 says this isn't going to do fuck all to insurance costs. When they passed that motion saying that Male and Female insurance prices should be the same I saw literally no change in the quotes. I get absolutely shafted by insurance costs for my Peugeot 206, my first year of driving cost me something stupid like £1300 ($2077) when the car itself was £1000, not to mention the high excess basically means I'd have to pay for anything short of writing off the car myself. Being a male driver under 21 in this country means you pay up to £1500 just for a piece of paper that's only use is not being arrested for being uninsured.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;42482792]As a young driver i'm kind of divided about this, I prefer the idea of having either a full license and be 100% fully qualified or not. There shouldn't really be a greyish area/ middle ground in licensing something that not only affects you but hundreds of other people around you on the road. If you have to stick p-plates on your car after you passed you shouldn't really be driving. How about raising the standard of the tests instead?[/QUOTE] Trust me, it's not as terrible as it sounds. Fact of the matter is, though, that we have the second worst lot of drivers in America. Take from that what you will.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;42482639]This sounds like our "L-platers" in Aus...[/QUOTE] It's exactly like Aus (at least NSW). I had to do 100 normal hours and 20 night hours under supervision, and I just can't imagine other people being suitable for the driver's test with any less experience than that.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;42482792]As a young driver i'm kind of divided about this, I prefer the idea of having either a full license and be 100% fully qualified or not. There shouldn't really be a greyish area/ middle ground in licensing something that not only affects you but hundreds of other people around you on the road. If you have to stick p-plates on your car after you passed you shouldn't really be driving. That way you can be fully sure that everyone else on the road is at the same level of skill or above that depending on years of experience. How about raising the standard of the tests instead? Also £20 says this isn't going to do fuck all to insurance costs. When they passed that motion saying that Male and Female insurance prices should be the same I saw literally no change in the quotes. I get absolutely shafted by insurance costs for my Peugeot 206, my first year of driving cost me something stupid like £1300 ($2077) when the car itself was £1000, not to mention the high excess basically means I'd have to pay for anything short of writing off the car myself. Being a male driver under 21 in this country means you pay up to £1500 just for a piece of paper that's only use is not being arrested for being uninsured.[/QUOTE] Our family car is a Series 2A Land Rover £100 a month and no road tax because it's so old. If only my insurance was like that, £1250 is the cheapest quote I got and I really don't see the point in paying that much, i'll wait until im atleast 21.
100 hours should include the 20 hours. Also should have to complete different types of driving - city, country, back roads, highway, bad weather. Would teach people how to drive to conditions.
In New York you get your junior license at 17 and senior license at 18 (unless you take driver's education, where you can get your senior license at 17). With a junior license you can only drive between 9 PM and 5 AM with your parent or from work/school to home and can't have more than one passenger under 21 in the car unless they're part of your immediate family.
Does the 100 hours under supervision mean it has to be with a relative or driving instructor? I can see it being pretty pricey for teenagers who's parents are too busy to take them out, 100 hours with a driving instructor would be like another £2,500 on top of car, insurance, tests etc
this is why they require kids under 18 in ohio to take driver's ed, which is kinda stupid because once you turn 18 you are instantly aware of all of the conditions of the road and can operate a vehicle without prior experience
Been driving for 6 years now and gotta be honest, this is bollocks and won't help new drivers much (if at all). In fact I'd rather wager a bet that It'll work against them. But why bother arguing, if your a young male driver aged 17 - 21 then your certainly gonna be in a pile up and die horribly ... Except no, not every young male driver is a fucking retarded boy racer. Best answer? Give some kind of rudimentary driving class in schools, theory and practical.
[QUOTE=Gareth;42483185]Does the 100 hours under supervision mean it has to be with a relative or driving instructor? I can see it being pretty pricey for teenagers who's parents are too busy to take them out, 100 hours with a driving instructor would be like another £2,500 on top of car, insurance, tests etc[/QUOTE] With licensed driving instructors, one hour of time with them is considered three hours of normal driving. When I got up to 90 hours on my learner's license my old man booked ten hours of driving with an instructor to push me up to the 120 hours in only three weeks time.
[QUOTE=Sableye;42483197]this is why they require kids under 18 in ohio to take driver's ed, which is kinda stupid because once you turn 18 you are instantly aware of all of the conditions of the road and can operate a vehicle without prior experience[/QUOTE] It's not required to take driver's ed. It's just that if you don't take it and get your license at 18, your insurance costs are extremely high.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;42483336]Been driving for 6 years now and gotta be honest, this is bollocks and won't help new drivers much (if at all). In fact I'd rather wager a bet that It'll work against them. But why bother arguing, if your a young male driver aged 17 - 21 then your certainly gonna be in a pile up and die horribly ... Except no, not every young male driver is a fucking retarded boy racer. Best answer? Give some kind of rudimentary driving class in schools, theory and practical.[/QUOTE] I'd rather share the roads with new drivers that have done 120 hours of driving experience than people who attended a couple of driving classes and only done a few hours of actual driving.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;42483390]I'd rather share the roads with new drivers that have done 120 hours of driving experience than people who attended a couple of driving classes and only done a few hours of actual driving.[/QUOTE] Already been posted but, young drivers can't legally get on the road as it is because of the ridiculous cost and adding more compulsory expenditure is not gonna help in the slightest. Lots of them turn to driving illegally which makes the whole system a waste of damn time.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;42482438][b]If it brings down insurance costs[/b], why not. .[/QUOTE] pfffffffffffft like that will happen
It's age discrimination. There are plenty of 18 year olds who have only been driving a few months who are safer drivers than some middle aged drivers. If this is trying to target 'boy racers' then they're going the wrong way about it - people will just be 'boy racers' a couple of years later.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;42482694]You must have a Class-P licence for like 6 months without incident to get a Class-Y licence, which you must have for a year without incident to get a Class-R licence.[/QUOTE] Maybe the article covered this. If it did I glossed over it. What happens if you get into an accident that is conclusively proven to not be your fault? IE, if you get rear ended at a stop light by someone on a cellphone.
[QUOTE=Gareth;42483185]Does the 100 hours under supervision mean it has to be with a relative or driving instructor? I can see it being pretty pricey for teenagers who's parents are too busy to take them out, 100 hours with a driving instructor would be like another £2,500 on top of car, insurance, tests etc[/QUOTE] Here you have to do your driving lessons with an instructor for instance. Costs about uh 500 EUR or so.
[QUOTE=Bengley;42483778]It's age discrimination. There are plenty of 18 year olds who have only been driving a few months who are safer drivers than some middle aged drivers. If this is trying to target 'boy racers' then they're going the wrong way about it - people will just be 'boy racers' a couple of years later.[/QUOTE] Don't let them do this, it will lead to something similar with our system in NSW because of "hoons". As stands you have to have a "Learner License" at 16 and hold for 1 year and 120 hours, you can only drive with an adult who has a full license. At 17 if you have had your "Learner License" for 1 year and 120 hours you can go for your "Provisional 1 License", this License allows you to drive by yourself but it limits you. You can only drive a car with 6 or less cylinders, can not be turbocharged/supercharged you can not do any modifications that will increase performance, one passenger under 21 between 11pm and 5 am and if you get any speeding offense (for example 4km/h over the speed limit) you lose your license for a minimum of 3 months. One you had that license for a year you can go for your "Provisional 2 License" which you must hold for 2 years, it is the same as your "Provisional 1 License" except for the speeding and the passengers. After 2 years with your "Provisional 2 License" you can go for your full license and finally drive normal cars. We also have to display two of these on the exterior of the car, one on the front and one on the back. [IMG]http://kianah.wikispaces.com/file/view/l-p-plates[1].jpg/89104223/l-p-plates[1].jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=theVendetta;42484494]Don't let them do this, it will lead to something similar with our system in NSW because of "hoons". As stands you have to have a "Learner License" at 16 and hold for 1 year and 120 hours, you can only drive with an adult who has a full license. At 17 if you have had your "Learner License" for 1 year and 120 hours you can go for your "Provisional 1 License", this License allows you to drive by yourself but it limits you. You can only drive a car with 6 or less cylinders, can not be turbocharged/supercharged you can not do any modifications that will increase performance, one passenger under 21 between 11pm and 5 am and if you get any speeding offense (for example 4km/h over the speed limit) you lose your license for a minimum of 3 months. One you had that license for a year you can go for your "Provisional 2 License" which you must hold for 2 years, it is the same as your "Provisional 1 License" except for the speeding and the passengers. After 2 years with your "Provisional 2 License" you can go for your full license and finally drive normal cars.[/QUOTE] That's crazy. Here is florida it's like simple. At 15 you apply for a learners. You have to have someone 21 or older that has a full license with you at all times. At 16 you apply for an actual license. The only restrictions are at 16 you must not drive from 11pm to 6am. At 17 you cannot drive from 1am to 5am, unless you are driving with a 21 year old or driving to/from home/school. I've driven plenty out of curfew, I've never been stopped. I had a friend who was driving at 2am to get some food, a cop happened to pull him over. He just said he was heading home and the cop just said "Drive safe" and left. It's kinda a joke. The only other restrictions are the normal Class E vehicle restrictions that 90% of all drivers have, which is that you can only drive "any non-commercial vehicle with a GVWR less than 26,001 pounds, or any RV."
From what I've seen, curfews are a pretty silly idea. There are going to be less people on the road therefore less of a chance of crashing in to someone else. Australia can have some very silly laws in getting your licence. In Western Australia for example, you do 25 hours of driving with someone who has had their licence for 4 years (Including P plate years) then you do the practical test. Then wait 6 more months and do 25 hours of driving again, then sit the hazard perception test in which it's nearly impossible to fail, once you have done that you get your licence straight away. We can drive any car we want though, as long as we can afford it we can drive it. After a year of driving, you would think you would be able to detect hazards on the road?
Um, if the point is that it's for 'new drivers', why is it only for one, tiny age bracket? I swear the government's actual intentions with these new (potential) laws are so transparent, they practically say it outright.
Everyone that's said this won't decrease insurance premiums is absolutely correct. I've recently been through the battle that is insurance companies and i've deduced that they are not founded by anyone remotely interested in cars or your safety on the road - they ask you to fork out money for something you only need to be legal to drive and will jump through every hoop they can to not pay out when you make a claim. I've been driving since I was 11 with the Under 17 Car Club and have had the opportunity to be taught how to drive, not to pass a test, and in the process have driven everything from an Austin Cambridge to an Aston Martin V12 Vantage Prototype, Sprinter vans, coaches and 40-ton articulated lorries. The actual total is somewhere between 200-300 and i'm not seventeen yet. I've had instruction at police level 2 advanced driving standard and spoken in the House of Commons trying to badger MPs into rethinking the driving test because it is [I]not fit for purpose.[/I] These measures will not fix these issues that are currently present and are avoiding the major issues. 1 in 4 young drivers have a serious accident in their first year behind the wheel. We need more pre-license driver training and be teaching young people [I]how to drive[/I], not how to pass a test. I've been to TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) many times and they had quite close ties with the car club, it's good to see that they published their reports but it's frustrating to see ministers chickening out over reforming the driving test.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;42482927]It's exactly like Aus (at least NSW). I had to do 100 normal hours and 20 night hours under supervision, and I just can't imagine other people being suitable for the driver's test with any less experience than that.[/QUOTE] same thing in QLD, however NSW has speed restriction for learners and provisional drivers of no more than 80km/h, when I was in NSW I had to do 80km/h on a highway going to QLD because I would of been booked [editline]11th October 2013[/editline] in QLD actually it's only 100 hours, you must have 10 hours of night driving put into that 100, anyone with an open licence for more than 1 year can supervise you P1 drivers are only allowed to carry passengers before 10 or 11pm after that there is a complete curfew for passengers, only people who are your family can be in your car after 11 P2's don't have any of that here its almost like being on your opens just that you have signage [editline]11th October 2013[/editline] also in QLD if you go with a driving instructor which has been approved by the state government they can give you double hours, once you hit 30 hours of that you don't get anymore, some people save these till they get 70 hours
First they the make it shitty to get a motorcycle licence, and now they're making it shitty for car drivers. I wish the government would stop fucking with the driving tests.
We have a 2 year probation on new license takers here in Sweden. Getting caught with any offenses like speeding, running red lights, not giving right of way to pedestrians, or ignoring stop signs etc will get your license revoked. Personally I felt it worked pretty well on me, because it made me a very careful driver. Though traffic still does seem to have its fair share of utter morons, I can still imagine that this law brings more good than harm. [editline]11th October 2013[/editline] [quote]New drivers would also face a curfew between 22:00 and 05:00 unless a passenger aged over 30 was in the vehicle.[/quote] This is bull though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.