Barbra Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Any one up for a spot of rebellion/civil uprising?I know I'm feeling that way at the moment...RichLets do it!That film reminds me alot of the way that this country seems to be heading to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuse Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) 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...I'd argue the chances aren't just as high though. The chances of a 45 year old who has just passed their test taking a bunch of their friends and going hell for leather on the roads to show off isn't exactly as high as a 17 year old doing it though is it? It's not so much the inexperience, more the maturity. At 17 some people (and it is just some) have the whole perception that nothing they do has any consequences. They don't realise that ploughing 50mph into the corner might result in them crashing (or worse hitting somebody else). A 45 year old will generally be a lot more mature and drive with a certain amount of responsibility.I know it's a big step to raise the driving age and it's massively unfair on those who do treat driving seriously, but really, at 17 a lot of people are still incredibly immature and have no perception of the consequences of their actions. Raising the age to 18 might just help a little.I'm also a believer that anybody who fails their test 3 times should be disqualified from taking another test for at least 2-3 years. Honestly, if you can't pass in 3 goes you seriously shouldn't be behind the wheel. You could take it a fourth time and get lucky in the present system, but I'd argue that the 3 previous failures highlight a serious deficiency in your driving ability. Edited July 21, 2007 by Fuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Well from someone who's 17 and just passed there test; I think driving at night on roads you know is far more safe than driving them during the daylight! just becuase headlights tell you where all cars are coming from whats behind you, if anythings coming out from that blind side road or whatever, i also know that i drive (for the majority) more safe when i have other people in the car, as i know im risking their lives.Nearly had a crash with a boy racer yesterday, (well i expect most people see me as a boy racer!!) but i think my dad told me something that hopefully i can always rememver and drive by, "everyone on the roads makes mistakes, its weather the people arround him have given the person enough room to make a mistake as to weather accidents happen or not" but everyone drive like tits at sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisRider Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 "everyone on the roads makes mistakes, its weather the people arround him have given the person enough room to make a mistake as to weather accidents happen or not"yeah my parents always tell me 'you have to drive for other people' which is very true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downhill_rob2@hotmail.com Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Dont worry lads, since you cant carry any of your mates, they will have cars... more people to race Nah seriously, im pissed off about this one! Gordon brown doesnt actually know much about life outside of the government... so doesnt know what MOST people drive like.. hes just looking at the crash rate... not the non crash rate...O yeah, just finished my 7th driving lesson 5 mins ago Edited July 21, 2007 by terror-error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 It does seem to be the people who are 17/18 and/or just passed or passing thier test that complain about this. When the slightly older, 20s etc see it as a good thing. No one can deny the fact that young lads at 17 pass their test, go out in their corsa with their mates and get it wrong somehow and wrap it. Im not saying thats everyone, but it is a very common situation, thus why the figures are so high. Putting the age up to 18 is only a good thing imo. The main issue is not stopping one person dying, but the whole car full of 17 year olds. So if they wanna get motorbikes let them, it will only be themselves they kill. As for the driving at night, also another good idea. As "cruzin" is detrimental in alot of ways, not least when they fly down country roads they dont know and wrap it. All in all, the best solution is just more police. Really. Get them off the motorways etc and get them round town centres of a night and patrolling te perimeter roads. Thats the way i see it anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 It does seem to be the people who are 17/18 and/or just passed or passing thier test that complain about this. When the slightly older, 20s etc see it as a good thing. No one can deny the fact that young lads at 17 pass their test, go out in their corsa with their mates and get it wrong somehow and wrap it. Im not saying thats everyone, but it is a very common situation, thus why the figures are so high. Putting the age up to 18 is only a good thing imo. The main issue is not stopping one person dying, but the whole car full of 17 year olds. So if they wanna get motorbikes let them, it will only be themselves they kill. As for the driving at night, also another good idea. As "cruzin" is detrimental in alot of ways, not least when they fly down country roads they dont know and wrap it. All in all, the best solution is just more police. Really. Get them off the motorways etc and get them round town centres of a night and patrolling te perimeter roads. Thats the way i see it anywaysBut surely the percentage of boyracers is nowhere near as high as that of non boy racers who are just dropping people off or going to the cinema with mates. I'm all for raising the limit of driving to 18 or even 20/21. But not allowing ANYBODY who's passed their test within a year to carry passengers at night just defeats the object of a driving test. What is the point of certifying them as capable of driving if the small percentage of them can't be trusted to drive responsibly. Car engine strength restrictions are a much better way of going about it. The amount of people i've seen who've just passed then had their parents buy them 1.8 and 2.0 turbo's as their first car is unreal. They can't be trusted to drive one of those as a first car, its just too much for them. Whack it down to 1.0 or 1.2 and it'll be much better than the no passenger law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrico Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 i''m getting a bike if this happens for definete!I wonder how many people will do this, i will. Will we see the rate of bike accidents go up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 But surely the percentage of boyracers is nowhere near as high as that of non boy racers who are just dropping people off or going to the cinema with mates. I'm all for raising the limit of driving to 18 or even 20/21. But not allowing ANYBODY who's passed their test within a year to carry passengers at night just defeats the object of a driving test. What is the point of certifying them as capable of driving if the small percentage of them can't be trusted to drive responsibly. Car engine strength restrictions are a much better way of going about it. The amount of people i've seen who've just passed then had their parents buy them 1.8 and 2.0 turbo's as their first car is unreal. They can't be trusted to drive one of those as a first car, its just too much for them. Whack it down to 1.0 or 1.2 and it'll be much better than the no passenger law.Sure, If it was up to me id introduce the "tit-o-meter" and if you fail the test and are a idiot your not allowed to drive at night, leaving those with a bit of common sense to do as they wish. BUT, that aint gonna happen is it? So the only way to do it is to stop everyone. Id say just as many people crash 1l cars as they do the 2l turbos. Its not the car, its the driver. But I agree a restriction is only a good thing. But insurance prices go some way to restrict engine size unless you have plenty of £££.The main issue here is that there are 2 kinds of people, those who follow the law and those who dont. Its those who dont follow it who we are trying to pin new laws onto, and by definition, that aint gonna work is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I agree with JTM, the fewer kids cruising the better. Obviously it's gonna inconvenience a few people, but if it saves lots of lives then it's a good idea. ANYONE who's 17-18 driving at night with 3-4 of their mates is going to show off a little bit/get egged on a little bit, it's human nature. You know it's true."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?Er yes they have. See the 'for every 100,000 motorists' bit. 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 agree with JTM, the fewer kids cruising the better. Obviously it's gonna inconvenience a few people, but if it saves lots of lives then it's a good idea. ANYONE who's 17-18 driving at night with 3-4 of their mates is going to show off a little bit/get egged on a little bit, it's human nature. You know it's true.Er yes they have. See the 'for every 100,000 motorists' bit.shhh, quiet you, I almost sounded intelligent for a second then. Ok so maybe I didnt read that bit.... quick, lets hope no one notices... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I agree with JTM, the fewer kids cruising the better. Obviously it's gonna inconvenience a few people, but if it saves lots of lives then it's a good idea. ANYONE who's 17-18 driving at night with 3-4 of their mates is going to show off a little bit/get egged on a little bit, it's human nature. You know it's true.But thats not whats happening is it. Its people who pass within their first year who aren't allowed to carry passengers. Take myself for example. I'm 20 and haven't started learning to drive until recently now that i have some money together for it. By the time i pass my test and everything i'll be nearer to 21, and yet i won't be able to carry passengers at night till i'm 22. No designated driver duty on nights out, hell even going to the cinema with my cousin tonight wouldn't have happened as he wouldn't have been able to drive me back home. He's a new driver, there was 3 of us in the car and yet nobody egged him on and i don't think i saw him go even slightly over a speed limit once. And this rule is going to be for passengers in general, it doesn't state how many, so i'd imgine it applies to anyone other than the driver. It doesn't state 3 or 4 passengers, so someone dropping their girlfriend off at home after a meal out would be breaking the law. Most girlfriends don't egg you on to drive like an idiot. Its not going to inconvenience a few people, it'll inconvenience a LOT of people, for the sake of some boyracers who meet up at the local mcdonalds car park every night, which lets face it... is the stereotype teenage driver they're aiming this at.The only scenario people can think of for night time driving with passengers is teenagers showing off with their mates, theres sooo many other scenarios in the opposite spectrum of it though that it kind of makes the show-offs seem to be much of a minority. The only way your going to deter them from doing it is having the police patrols more attuned to the situation, if theres an area where boyracers constantly meet more patrols should be put on in that area to deter them from driving wrecklessly. There ARE other ways round tackling boyracers/show-offs than to tar every new driver with the same brush from the get-go. You wouldn't stop people wearing hoodies into shops because a small minority of people wore hoodies when robbing a place, just because some people have done something doesn't mean everyone should be treated with the same disrespect.I'm all for making the roads safer, having lost people i care about in crashes i wouldn't wish it on anyone... but this is NOT a sensible way of going about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONGO Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 They say is every year don't mworry mate. It was said whnei i was staring to drive in the year 2000. It's comes round every year ut nonthin ever hapepnens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downhill_rob2@hotmail.com Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 But since gordon browns now our pm, it might actually happen...? tony blair was useless at these type of things and was more focused on blowing shit up and world domination... 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.