Drivers should have a minimum of a year of lessons!!

mrthingyx said:
Just as an accident won't easily differentiate between a 4'9 adult and a 4'9 eleven year-old
Click to expand...


Actually, I beleive part of the problem is where the seatbelt sits on a body that is not fully developed. If the person was fully grown and 4'9 it would not be as damaging as someone who is 4'9 and young and still growing.

However, that's a discussion for a another thread.
 
PeterNem said:
Actually, I beleive part of the problem is where the seatbelt sits on a body that is not fully developed. If the person was fully grown and 4'9 it would not be as damaging as someone who is 4'9 and young and still growing.

However, that's a discussion for a another thread.
Click to expand...


Exactly right, however very OT here, so, as you say a discussion for another thread, if it starts I can let you know all about it at that is part of the job I do day in day out.
 
I can't see how making it even harder for people to pass at the moment will help, it will just put even more uninsured drivers with no license on the roads.

I'd rather get hit by a muppet with insurance, than someone with nothing!

Restrictions would need to be sensible, perhaps nothing over 200bhp til you've had 3 years driving experience (I don't why people say over 25, as surely experience is what people need). But don't restrict people to crappy 75bhp tin boxes, they are dangerous as it takes years to overtake anyone.

Being 19 and owning a 140bhp car myself (all insured in my name before anyone starts) you can see why I wouldn't support that. But in my opinion I drive carefully, even more so than I did in my old 70bhp tinbox. Perhaps I felt I had something to prove, but when you have to keep your foot to the floor to go anywhere it doesn't really teach you much about car control.

Plus I know young drivers do cause accidents, but what about everyone else? How do you improve their driving, I've seen a hell of a lot of old people doing crazy things. (Had an old guy reverse on to a busy roundabout the other week, and another drive along the pavement to avoid a roundabout nearly taking a signpost out on the way :eek: ).

I just think that young drivers already get enough stick, we pay ****loads for insurance on anything, and get the blame for any accident anywhere.

All these restrictions would have to apply to anyone at any age after passing their test, I don't care if you are over 25 you can still be a muppet.

Lastly wouldn't a good start be to actually enforce the current system?

So many people drive without a licence or insurance, tax and mot. If you got them off the roads you've already freed up some space and reduced insurance costs as they no longer have to pay for uninsured accidents.

Don't add more regulations, if you can't enforce them! :o
 
Entai said:
Clicky

In the news today, the ABI (Association of British Insurers) are suggesting that learner drivers should take lessons for a minimum of a year before taking a test. Various road safety groups are backing the idea as well.


Personally speaking, about time too. It is too easy to pass the test without knowing how to drive. IMO all that learners learn, is how to pass the test not how to drive.

[Rant] Bring this in, then make provisional, (P), plates and advanced level training compulsory, and maybe add a year of experience as well, so that you cannot take your "P" plates off untill the advanced test and another year is passed. Then maybe we wil see a real world improvement in young peoples driving skills, and perhaps all our insurance premiums may fall a bit, if they are not having to pay out so much to accidents involving young drivers. [/Rant] ;)

Just my opinion on the subject, what are yours?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm, interesting. Yes this is a very good idea. If only everybody shared the same views
 
ratface said:
Whats the point

A learner does 1hr per week total 52hrs experience in a yr, still rubish once they've passed

I did more than 52hrs in a month when learning or are they going to say you need to do 100/200hrs a year etc

Time taken to learn doesn't matter, time behind the wheel does imo
Click to expand...
What happens if you do all that in the summer, then you dont know what the car is like to drive in cold weather/rain/snow.
 
It took me a year to pass, albeit with a 3 month breaks and only doing an hour a week, and that seems to be ebaout the norm with a lot of people i know. However, i think its a daft idea, you learn to drive when you have passed, not when you have an instructor watching over you telling you not to do things. As a learned you learn the control of the car, and how to manouvre it, not the manners of the roads properly.

If they want to do this, then IMO the learner should have a lot more choice over where they go on practice, rather than just doing what you are told as IMO learning to drive properly comes with a bit of freedom and experiencing different roads, not just the roads you get taken on test.

Good idea in theory, but not in practice id guess.
 
I think i'ts too hard as it is but for the wrong reasons.

I think the test should just be a hell of a lot longer but a lot less strict, getting marked down for not checking your rear view mirror when stopping for a junction where you have no choice but to stop or cause a high speed pile up on a dual carriageway is a bit dodgy but i got marked down for it.

Even if some guy behind is going to rear end me i dont really fancy a 32 ton truck embedding itself in my door at 60 so i'm gonna bloody stop anyway!

Took me 3 attempts over a period of what i think was 5 months, aint touched a Front Wheel drive car since i passed my test, and of the 4 cars i have driven only one has been under 160Hp, not so much as a parking scrape yet though.

I think the test should be something like 6-7 1 hour sessions based on more general driving ability & not failing someone because they forgot to look in their mirror before they flicked the indicator stalk more than 6 times in the space of 35 mins.
 
A better and slightly more realistic option would be a minimum number of lessons than a minimum set period, although as it is I think is OK, but maybe a tougher test at the end.

What I really would like to see though is time away from the road and on a track to show in a safe environment what cars can and can't do.
When I crashed my car I knew I lost control and learnt a great deal from that, but I learnt so much more when I did the track day I got free with my new car as there have been some hairy moments (some on purpose, some not) and having the skill to correct the situation properly than brick myself and stick my car in a hedge...again!
 
Sure, force young drivers to have a years worth of lessons. Who's going to pay for that? So the older generation, who are probably abhorrently poor drivers themselves, get to have an easy ride and continue to be a poor driver, whereas poor school leaver then has to pay for a years worth of lessons.

When the REAL problem - older "I know it all!" drivers with 20+ years of bad habits under their belts continue to "have it easy".

Hell, let's kill all the birds with one stone...and force *EVERYBODY* to re-take their test. If they fail, they never drive ever ever ever again. Fair?

What isn't needed is longer lessons, what is needed is relevent driver training.

Will it stop the chavs from driving at warp 5 everywhere? No, it'll only take longer for them to get their licence - that's if they choose the legal route. Will forcing young drivers to take a years worth of lessons solve the problem of the old and infirm behind the wheel? Or how about the captain know-it-all and his holier-than-thou "must be good, been doing this for [insert years here]!"?

The test is a lot tougher than it was. It's fine. What is needed is more time out on the roads with their vehicles. The showing off tendancy with the "look at me, i got my licence and my car!! weeeeeeeee!!" is something a fair few young people have when they pass. Forcing them to learn for a year or more will only INCREASE the whole "look at me, i've passed!!!" showoff factor, forcing them to continue to do stupid things.

It reminds me of another idea someone once had...

"OMFG GUNS ARE KILLING MY CHILDREN!!!111 LET'S BAN ALL FIREARMS THEN CRIME WILL DISAPPEAR!" Er, right.
 
Last edited:
I think they should teach learners how to drive, and not how to pass a test.

Use skid pans, use motorways, teach them how to accelerate up a slip road using the gears.
I dont think a set number of lessons will work, as some people only need 20 lessons to be able to do everything where as others need 100 lessons.

If a law comes in saying that you have to have a years worth of lessons think how many more unlicensed drives there will be.
 
There should be some sort of hours system like trainee pilots have to have. Nothing silly, but you must complete say 5 hours driving (not all in one go)with an ADI without doing anything that would be a failure on a driving test. The ADI would sign you off and you would then be able to put in for your test. After passing your test, there would then be a compulsory 5 hours of motorway tuition with a one hour demo drive showing that you can join the motorway at an appropriate speed (not 30mph like some idiots), have decent lane discipline and appropriate awareness. This must be completed within 3 months of passing your test, and before your full licence is issued.

The above wouldn't cost much to implement - all the DSA would need is some sort of web or phone system for ADI's to "sign off" the pupils, wouldn't cost young drivers very much (about £200), would have a positive impact on road safety and would probably reduce insurance premiums for young drivers.
 
Snow said:
The test is a lot tougher than it was. .
Click to expand...


Er sorry no it is not, now you can have up to, what is it, 12-14 (iirc) minors and still get a pass. :confused:

In the "olden days" one fail was a total fail, end of test, goodbye, try again another time.

You kept going like that untill you could get everything right all the time, not just a case of "oh well you nearly did get it right you only messed up on 10 occasions but it was nearly OK so I have to let you pass"
 
Entai said:
Er sorry no it is not, now you can have up to, what is it, 12-14 (iirc) minors and still get a pass. :confused:

In the "olden days" one fail was a total fail, end of test, goodbye, try again another time.

You kept going like that untill you could get everything right all the time, not just a case of "oh well you nearly did get it right you only messed up on 10 occasions but it was nearly OK so I have to let you pass"
Click to expand...

My dad would not be able to pass a modern driving test which he admits, yet passed his driving test after a few hours in my grandads mini about 30 years ago.

And he aint a bad driver, he has not yet had an accident & drives a 32 ton HGV for a living 6 days a week.

And when you get minors on your test they really are Minors now, ie doing anything not to perfection, in my opinion the current test is far too short & far too strict.
 
I think a time limit on lessons is wrong at the end of it you not have an experience on your own, u've still got a backup in case you screw up during that year.

They should just make everyone take the extended test currently given to disqualified drivers retaking there test. Saying that though drivers who are disqualified for constantly speeding, drink driving, death by dangerous driving etc should i think lose the right to drive for life.

In reality you can really only learn how to drive by doing it simple as learn to respect the road and other users, i know for one after i passed my test i was nervous i wasn't as aware as i am now.

I read recently that theres been an idea floating around that new drivers should be limited to a car with 1000cc for the first year or 2. i think that is a god awful idea imagine that 1 litre cars maxing out on the motorway in the fast lane.

thedazman
 
blueboy2001 said:
There should be some sort of hours system like trainee pilots have to have. Nothing silly, but you must complete say 5 hours driving (not all in one go)with an ADI without doing anything that would be a failure on a driving test. The ADI would sign you off and you would then be able to put in for your test. After passing your test, there would then be a compulsory 5 hours of motorway tuition with a one hour demo drive showing that you can join the motorway at an appropriate speed (not 30mph like some idiots), have decent lane discipline and appropriate awareness. This must be completed within 3 months of passing your test, and before your full licence is issued.

The above wouldn't cost much to implement - all the DSA would need is some sort of web or phone system for ADI's to "sign off" the pupils, wouldn't cost young drivers very much (about £200), would have a positive impact on road safety and would probably reduce insurance premiums for young drivers.
Click to expand...


what your talking about here is pretty much what pass plus is, but it isnt compulsary (yet)

also BSM now have a scheme called pass promise and you dont go for test untill the instructor signs you off as fit to take the test
 
This is a great idea. Because with 1 years experience and becomeing a much safer driver the insurance companies will be forced not to charge silly premiums meaning new drivers can go out and buy a much more powerfull car. Ya right....
 
cyclopopcicle said:
what your talking about here is pretty much what pass plus is, but it isnt compulsary (yet)

also BSM now have a scheme called pass promise and you dont go for test untill the instructor signs you off as fit to take the test
Click to expand...

BSM have always said you need more lessons even when your ready, that way they get more money!!! :p
 
To be honest.. I know someone has said that everyone learns at different paces, some can pick driving up in a few lessons, and some after a few months.. I've been driving provisionally since 08-08-05, and I didnt pass my test till 1-11-06.. so thats well over a year... and I had loads of my own practice in my car..

If the system wasnt working, I am sure that they would have changed it... the test is a test of your skills to drive safely.. if you choose not to do-so after your test, then the consiquences are on you, and you alone.
 
Maybe an IQ test should be taken before allowed in a car :D

A lot of it is to do with the attitude of the drivers too.

Speaking form experience, I passed in 25lessons, with no extra help with parents. This took 5 months. I would not have been impressed doing the same thing over and over again for another 7 months. Maybe if they teach learners how to control the car during skids and what happens when you lock the wheels under heavy braking etc then it would take nearly a year to learn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom