Dan6061 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Heard all about it on the radio.Gordon Brown's latest idea: All young drivers will start learning to drive at 18. For the first year of their driving, they will not be allowed to carry passengers at night, between certain hours.That's pretty much the just of it!All info here: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/grad_license.htmlThis is all down to the crash rate of young drivers over the past year. Many teenagers deaths have been because they were a passenger in a road collision. To stop this, they have decided to not let young drivers carry passengers until after a year's driving experiance.I think it's mad!What about all this environment saving? With this law in force, there will be more cars on the road at night, mainly driven by teenagers, because they couldn't get a lift with their mate.This will mean more emissions are being burnt into the atmosphere. Everything we're doing to save the environment will be wasted by this. We'll just be going round in circles.In a way, we'll just be giving the Earth back what we've burnt off it. - If that makes sense?That's only one down-side I can think of...Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrix Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) loads of people will ignore it, no matter the concisenesses.I myself see no point in it... as I've not seen one of my mates have a crash at night... EVER! Edited July 20, 2007 by Hendrixmaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Once this has been all sorted, I would of been driving for a year. So really I couldn't give a toss about anyone else and their inconvenience, infact I have no idea why I'm posting. I'm talking crap.2nd downside is you'll get more young lads on motorbikes instead of cars because they will think 'theres no need for the seats in the car' I might aswell get a bike an avoid traffic jams. I'm just speculating, but then motorbike deaths would increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Wood Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 More drunk driving is definately a good thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicH_87 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 it's almost a good idea in my opinion.i can see why they would implement such a rule, i see a lot of overloaded cars 'cruzin' around and they are just begging for an accident.no matter how good you think you are, you are a shit driver for at least the first few months due to lack of experience.however it's a stupid inconvenience for the rest of the youth that are actually sensible and respectful....then again those people are unlikely to be carrying a lot of passengers late at night.as said, it doesn't effect me so i don't really care, but as far as i'm concerned they should up the legal driving age to 18 anyway, and you shouldn't be allowed to pass until the age of 21 if you fail the test more than 3 times.there are FAR to many drivers around in general, we don't need even more 17 year old retards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbra Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 i''m getting a bike if this happens for definete! two years of no means of transport (i know theres public before you say ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrico Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 For people saying they dont care because there driving, how would you feel if your a couple of months of being able to start learning to drive, then the age goes up, youd be a bit annoyed wouldnt you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trix Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 If they really wanted to bring young drivers crash count down dont give "boy racers" licenses, im not biased its the truth one of my mates wrote his first car off because he was one and anyone of them you speak to you crashed yet yeah i wrote a corsa off init and they dont think of or whats going to happen next. But then if there were more patrol veichles on the road there be less "boy racer" type accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 That link was a set of rules for america no? Its going to be crap anyway. If someones passed their test their supposed to be certified to drive. How can they be certified as being safe to drive if they aren't trusted enough to carry passengers at a time that is generally less busy on the roads.I'm 20 and only just getting round to driving, if someone tells me i can't have passengers in my car between certain hours its not going to stop me. You could just say you were returning from a day trip somewhere at which point you got lost and as such were delayed and the only option would have been to leave your mate there. It just isn't feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaZaa Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I don't think its fair for people who live well out of the way of their friends for example who can't drive. When I first passed my test my girlfriend was unable to drive so if she wanted to come to mine one night I picked her up and then dropped her off home. If I was unable to take her home I would either have to travel all the way to her house and back on public transport which by the time she left would be pretty much packed up or she goes on her own putting herself in even more danger. I think its a load of bollocks really because I've seen when my friends are out driving in packs they drive like arse holes basically to show what their 1litre corsas are made of and try to overtake people and dont have the power to finish it off and end up in more danger than if they were all in 1 motor not showing off or doing anything daft. I realise that people in 1 car still act like pricks but if 1 person overtakes a car it ends up been a convoy and gets silly and quite scary. Maybe I'm beginning to talk crap but theres a point in there somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_Tupman Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I say make it harder to pass and get the nuts off the road that would solve the problem but they'll never do it as it will cost them more money! Yet again the people being screwed over by the goverment.I still don't understand why we have a primeminister that we havent voted for!! Should have been an election after Mr Blair left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisRider Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I myself see no point in it... as I've not seen one of my mates have a crash at night... EVER!so that means it never happens...seriously, think outside of the box? just cos your mates haven't had a tumble, doesn't mean it has no point? people get hurt/die because of irresponsible driving, everybody else has to suffer both emotionally and financially (insurance rape)-thats not fairthis has been going on for ages, there was even talk of the driving age being lowered! i think by all means the driving age should be increased, i only did my test when i was 19, but even now, i still find i sometimes drive like a arrogant willy (less so now since a few mishaps, but im not going to deny it still happens, being older, i *should* be more responsible and mature, but the darkside prevails), but its a shame to see so many 17 (and older) year olds crash and burn cos they think they are the don. i think restrictions on engine size could be a possible answer (although i guess it doesn't stop people going fast on slower roads still) but i'm guessing just like mopeds (snigger) people will find ways round restrictions to make them 'faster' (snigger).the single passenger thing makes sense-gives people more time to get used to real driving-but not for that timescale-half that would be more appropriate. Ok yes, emissions and hurting the environment shit is a problem, but seriously-how f**king often do we drive with a full load? fag all in comparison to how much you drive alone i bet...it makes shit all difference when you really think about it.More lesson time would help, i know i'm a hypocrite here as i did an intensive course, but alot of people aren't getting the 40hour minimum learning time that the dvla suggests, there should be a system where the instructor HAS to sign a form stating how many hours you have done, and you cant do your test until you have covered a suitable amount, it doesn't matter how natural you are at driving, you still need practice-Everybody i know who's done an intensive course and passed first time drives like a frigging fanny-c**tswell there you go, im in a rambling mood as im tipsy, and i feel the need to sleepxxxoh yeah monsieur tupperware(man), 'we' did vote for him in effect, you vote for the party, not the pm, so when you go 'yeah lets vote blair! hes a dude and his wifes well fit!' you are voting all his little mates too, including browny boy(+his wife)-gash i know, but if the majority were stupid enough to vote for labour in the first place...what do you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Ehm... no one really noticed it's in the USA? I'm damn glad I'm not a citizen of the United States (is there a word other than american to design someone living in the USA, I mean, I'm an american, I'm on the continent of america but sure as f**k don't live in the USA...). The legal drinking age is at 21, for example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathopper Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 But if you think about it its most boy racers that pass their test the quickest, I know of loads of boy racer people who passed there test in couple of months and theres me whos just got their test book in just under a year, just goes to show they maybe better drivers even if they dont act like it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future orange 660 Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 maybe its to stop so many people drinking too as there is usually once that needs to drive home. unless of course everyone will start drinking and driving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) unless of course everyone will start drinking and drivingDing Ding Ding, spot on!If people arent allowed to take passengers, its going to mean a lot more people will drive to a pub, drink, and drive home, because their mate who doesnt drink, cant take them home.I would far rather see a bhp limit for 1-2 years, like on motorcycle tests. That would make far more of a difference as it will stop daddys boy going out in his new Subaru that daddy paid for, and wrapping it round a tree when he runs out of talent Edited July 21, 2007 by Andy@NBR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 If this brings insurance prices down i'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egg Fried Rice Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Ehm... no one really noticed it's in the USA? I'm damn glad I'm not a citizen of the United States (is there a word other than american to design someone living in the USA, I mean, I'm an american, I'm on the continent of america but sure as f**k don't live in the USA...). The legal drinking age is at 21, for example...Actually, its the UK too, link belowThis was on BBC news the other night actually, quite interesting. will try and find the linkLink!The gov seem pretty certain that they will raise the limit.JK Edited July 21, 2007 by J-KAY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathopper Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 The age limit thing has been floating around for ages, there was this big scare that it would increase to 18, Are they serious this time? Because its been on the cards for a while but nothings ever come of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I wonder who the BBC get to do their mathematics...."Government figures show that one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25"So theres then the 3rd of accidents caused by the people aged between 25 and 40, and a 3rd of accidents caused by people aged 40+. Not exactly an astonishing ratio is it??"In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20. By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2."But they havent taken into account the rise in population between 1992 and 2005, which is probably somewhat equal to the rise in accidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 The goal they want to achieve is good, the way they're doing it could be better. If such an idea were to be pushed through in my country, I'd definitely say yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbra Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Andy has just pwned the government n00bz! This is where (like on V for Vendetta) He gets taken away and killed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Theres also a lit of Misinterpretation between the words "young drivers" and "inexperienced drivers". Its clearly obvious that all "young" drivers are going to be inexperienced as they have only just passed, but wheres the statistic that shows "inexperienced" drivers accident ratio? Who is to say that a 45 year old who has just passed thier test, wont go out the next day and have a crash? Chances are equally as high, due to the fact they are "inexperienced", but of course they wont have a crash, because they arent 17-25? If the accident ratio is so high for 17-25 year olds, why dont be just make the legal age limit 25? There we go, the statistic is sorted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Pearson Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 V for VendettaAny one up for a spot of rebellion/civil uprising?I know I'm feeling that way at the moment...Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Yeah Rich, lets do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.