Over 70’s should have to renew using the DVLAs forms, that’ll double as a Cognitive test. As for new drivers not taking young people, this is why I wish we had a constitution or some form of bill of rights.
And as usual the BBC are unable to get the basic facts right.
Note you have no right to check the age of people before you let them in your car, and the police have no right to ask them for ID if they are in your car, so if they say they are 21 you and the police cannot legally check…
Another reason for young people to hate the older generations. I’m sure that’ll work for the older generation advantage when they (young people) have had enough and fuck off to Australia, Canada etc….
The AA is wrong, we need to come down harder on older drivers and protect young drivers from peer pressure that comes with passing your test at a young age.
It’s just not right that people can keep driving and only risk a £1000 fine.
I do get older people need to socialise and that may mean travel but we should be enabling that through other means and not by driving a car. Community bus schemes come to mind as a starting point, if public transport is out.
When you’ve been to a funeral of a lad from school who killed his girlfriend and read her mother’s pain in the papers years later you probably would feel how I feel. Anything that could lower the risk of such devastating pain should be attempted. I know we can’t stop every death on the road but youngsters do make peer pressure mistakes more than any other age in all sorts of things. I am not totally against it and any effort that saves one family from losing a teenager would be worth someone having to get a taxi or bus
To clarify, this is discussing the idea of restricting under 21s from being in the vehicle of new drivers for 6 months. **EDIT: The language used in the article is “drivers who are under 21 and passengers of a similar age”, so if you’re 30 when you pass this wouldn’t affect you, and if you’re 17 then it won’t affect you 6 months after you pass.**
That requirement is new and strange to us since we’ve never had restrictions on the types of passengers we drive in our cars, but it’s not uncommon in other countries, and it has lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries in young people caused by dangerous driving.
This wouldn’t be the end of the world. This would be 6 months without under 21s in your car while you learn to control a multiple tonne machine on your lonesome.
There’s no reasonable way we can expect young people to go along with this unless the restrictions also come with something aimed at those on the other end of the spectrum too
What a stupid waste of time.
The national infrastructure is in tatters, people *cannot get driving tests in the first place*, the ecosystem is steadily collapsing due to idiotic industrial practices, and the atmosphere is *still being poisoned* despite an entire *century* of knowing the causes and consequences.
Looking at the statistics…
17-21s are a risk…
86+ are actually the highest risk.
70+ to the end, are significantly higher than 17-21s.
The issue is this 5yr banding bullshit.
Look at the drop from Onwards, showing improvement, massive improvement, Vs 70 onwards, showing a fucking awful roadrisk.
Treating the youth like babies, they aren’t going to become adults. What happens if this went ahead, at 22 they are alike fuck I haven’t had friends in the car before and NOW I’m distracted.. good idea.
The stats don’t lie, the youngest band improves, 70 onwards certainly does not.
What would be a wiser move, is ban the youth from having pop and bang maps, engine POWER not size restricted to say 140bhp which is fairly weak by modern standards.
From collisions involving a younger car driver in 2023
Killed Serious Slight All
290 4,669 18,918 23,877
From collisions involving all car drivers in 2023
Killed Serious Slight All
1,255 23,017 93,432. 117,704
Percentage involving younger car drivers = 23 percent
Maybe we should be looking at older drivers?
This is a bad idea I had to drive my sibling to so many places when we were young including a&e and other hospital appointments mostly because I had time off in college and my parents worked full time.
I can maybe get behind a limit of 1 under 21 passenger or no under 21s after say 22:00 but a blanket ban will be a pain, and a potential cause of loss of life since we seem to have no effective ambulance service anymore.
We also need to think that most driving laws are becoming optional now with the lack of police not just speeding but I see so many people running red lights etc who’s going to be stopping these people.
The problem with these sorts of proposals is that it treats an entire demographic as homogenous. I’m 35 but still remember who of my schoolmates I didn’t want to be in a car with and who were as safe as houses. Teenagers aren’t all the same. Some give in to peer pressure easily. Some are inherently sensible. Some want to show off every day. Some treat driving with great respect.
On that last point, during my walk home from the gym most weekday mornings, I see many local high school students driving. I’m yet to see one using their phone while at the wheel, adult drivers however it’s around 1 in 5.
Sounds fair, as long as the new driver’s insurance and vehicle tax are reduced proportionally for each seat they’re not allowed to use.
On a serious note, why are we so hell bent on punishing the young. Give the youth a bloody chance, please.
The real risk is specifically young *men* sharing a car. Women of almost any age are much safer but I’m not sure you can legally discriminate on the basis of sex.
I miss the days before internet where even if there were still people feigning outrage at the mildest inconvenience imposed in the name of following a bit of common sense, at least they weren’t constantly beamed into people’s living rooms to be latched onto by similiarly unserious people.
Ok, lets say, for argument’s sake, this ridiculous law is passed…does that mean that new drivers will be able to get cheaper insurance by law?
I think power restriction would be more effective. Under 21s shouldn’t be able to own a car with a power output greater than 65bhp. Yes they can still get up to motorway speeds, but it’s much more difficult for them to do that in built up areas. It ridiculous seeing young drivers in 300bhp+ cars that can do 90mph almost anywhere.
> Mr King says this could also help bring down insurance premiums for new drivers.
Wishful thinking, the companies involved will use any excuse to charge an arm and a leg. Not saying EV and new car claims hasn’t contributed to the increased premiums but I feel like the companies are hiding behind this excuse 70% of the time
Adding extra restrictions to people who’ve just passed their test is just the government admitting their driving tests arent good enough at weeding out the people who really shouldnt be driving
> While the government isn’t thought to be considering the idea
This entire comment section is just people jumping up and down whining about something that almost certainly won’t happen.
And you complain about Daily Mail commenters….
Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-fucking-dum
This country loves nothing more than restricting the rights and freedoms of normal fucking people.
However, ask them to do anything about actual criminals then any imposition of force from the state is considered a human rights abuse tantamount to Guantanamo.
Yeah, this is bs. You pass the test, you buy a car, and you decide who travels with you. The government should have zero say in this. Stop with this idiotic “nanny state” approach.
I don’t like the point some of these young people are making, that they aren’t all reckless drivers. Sure, most of them aren’t, but they ARE inexperienced, perhaps unconsciously wanting to impress their mates, etc. Not *intentionally* reckless, but particularly prone to making mistakes, putting themselves into situations they aren’t comfortable with, or getting distracted.
There’s a reason their insurance premiums are high, why people say that you really learn how to drive after you pass your test, why people expect their first cars to get a bit scraped up, etc.
The whole “driving a sibling to school” thing though I don’t feel is a massive risk. It’s not the same as a 17 year old having 3 17 year old passengers in the back, potentially distracting them or encouraging them to do dangerous things.
Unsure how this could be effectively implemented though. Maybe time-based (e.g. allowed passengers of a similar age but only during the day)? Maybe age-based, but also with a lower age limit (e.g. maybe limiting 16-21 year olds as passengers)? Maybe not a blanket ban, but a limit of one passenger of this age? Or only a limit on passengers of this age if there are no older passengers also in the vehicle? Perhaps exclusions on any kind of restriction e.g. for those young people who are carers of younger siblings whilst transporting them?
The driving test can never test for this. It can test whether you know the rules of the road & are able to follow them safely. But how can it test how you deal with disruptive passengers, peer pressure, etc? Perhaps some kind of ban / restriction on certain passengers could be enforced, with the option to reduce the time of this restriction by attending some kind of course? Obviously wishful thinking with the current state of things but a thought.
Almost the only kids I knew personally who died during my own childhood, were in exactly this situation of a car full of under-21s. Two separate incidents. In one of them, a kid decide to race home the parents of a girl he’d just met that night, and lost control of the car. Killed his best friend and one of the girls. The other I don’t know the details of, but he went to my secondary school, and lived on my bus route.
The visceral reaction that this is “bad” appeals to the emotional sense of fairness and everyone thinking they are an exception to the average.
It is six months that we are asking a new young driver to exercise some forbearance.
Then again this is same population that justifies vapes as a “quitting aid” while seeing a brand new generation who had never smoked – suddenly vaping. Hardly responds to facts and stats.
I understand the POV of the government but it is government overreach. It is not the business of the government to dictate this. If they are wanting to avoid this, they would be better off simply raising the age for driving to over 21, rather than implementing more authoritarian nonsense.
26 comments
Over 70’s should have to renew using the DVLAs forms, that’ll double as a
Cognitive test. As for new drivers not taking young people, this is why I wish we had a constitution or some form of bill of rights.
And as usual the BBC are unable to get the basic facts right.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2023/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2023
Note you have no right to check the age of people before you let them in your car, and the police have no right to ask them for ID if they are in your car, so if they say they are 21 you and the police cannot legally check…
Another reason for young people to hate the older generations. I’m sure that’ll work for the older generation advantage when they (young people) have had enough and fuck off to Australia, Canada etc….
The AA is wrong, we need to come down harder on older drivers and protect young drivers from peer pressure that comes with passing your test at a young age.
It’s just not right that people can keep driving and only risk a £1000 fine.
I do get older people need to socialise and that may mean travel but we should be enabling that through other means and not by driving a car. Community bus schemes come to mind as a starting point, if public transport is out.
When you’ve been to a funeral of a lad from school who killed his girlfriend and read her mother’s pain in the papers years later you probably would feel how I feel. Anything that could lower the risk of such devastating pain should be attempted. I know we can’t stop every death on the road but youngsters do make peer pressure mistakes more than any other age in all sorts of things. I am not totally against it and any effort that saves one family from losing a teenager would be worth someone having to get a taxi or bus
To clarify, this is discussing the idea of restricting under 21s from being in the vehicle of new drivers for 6 months. **EDIT: The language used in the article is “drivers who are under 21 and passengers of a similar age”, so if you’re 30 when you pass this wouldn’t affect you, and if you’re 17 then it won’t affect you 6 months after you pass.**
That requirement is new and strange to us since we’ve never had restrictions on the types of passengers we drive in our cars, but it’s not uncommon in other countries, and it has lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries in young people caused by dangerous driving.
This wouldn’t be the end of the world. This would be 6 months without under 21s in your car while you learn to control a multiple tonne machine on your lonesome.
There’s no reasonable way we can expect young people to go along with this unless the restrictions also come with something aimed at those on the other end of the spectrum too
What a stupid waste of time.
The national infrastructure is in tatters, people *cannot get driving tests in the first place*, the ecosystem is steadily collapsing due to idiotic industrial practices, and the atmosphere is *still being poisoned* despite an entire *century* of knowing the causes and consequences.
Looking at the statistics…
17-21s are a risk…
86+ are actually the highest risk.
70+ to the end, are significantly higher than 17-21s.
The issue is this 5yr banding bullshit.
Look at the drop from Onwards, showing improvement, massive improvement, Vs 70 onwards, showing a fucking awful roadrisk.
Treating the youth like babies, they aren’t going to become adults. What happens if this went ahead, at 22 they are alike fuck I haven’t had friends in the car before and NOW I’m distracted.. good idea.
The stats don’t lie, the youngest band improves, 70 onwards certainly does not.
What would be a wiser move, is ban the youth from having pop and bang maps, engine POWER not size restricted to say 140bhp which is fairly weak by modern standards.
From collisions involving a younger car driver in 2023
Killed Serious Slight All
290 4,669 18,918 23,877
From collisions involving all car drivers in 2023
Killed Serious Slight All
1,255 23,017 93,432. 117,704
Percentage involving younger car drivers = 23 percent
Maybe we should be looking at older drivers?
This is a bad idea I had to drive my sibling to so many places when we were young including a&e and other hospital appointments mostly because I had time off in college and my parents worked full time.
I can maybe get behind a limit of 1 under 21 passenger or no under 21s after say 22:00 but a blanket ban will be a pain, and a potential cause of loss of life since we seem to have no effective ambulance service anymore.
We also need to think that most driving laws are becoming optional now with the lack of police not just speeding but I see so many people running red lights etc who’s going to be stopping these people.
The problem with these sorts of proposals is that it treats an entire demographic as homogenous. I’m 35 but still remember who of my schoolmates I didn’t want to be in a car with and who were as safe as houses. Teenagers aren’t all the same. Some give in to peer pressure easily. Some are inherently sensible. Some want to show off every day. Some treat driving with great respect.
On that last point, during my walk home from the gym most weekday mornings, I see many local high school students driving. I’m yet to see one using their phone while at the wheel, adult drivers however it’s around 1 in 5.
Sounds fair, as long as the new driver’s insurance and vehicle tax are reduced proportionally for each seat they’re not allowed to use.
On a serious note, why are we so hell bent on punishing the young. Give the youth a bloody chance, please.
The real risk is specifically young *men* sharing a car. Women of almost any age are much safer but I’m not sure you can legally discriminate on the basis of sex.
I miss the days before internet where even if there were still people feigning outrage at the mildest inconvenience imposed in the name of following a bit of common sense, at least they weren’t constantly beamed into people’s living rooms to be latched onto by similiarly unserious people.
Ok, lets say, for argument’s sake, this ridiculous law is passed…does that mean that new drivers will be able to get cheaper insurance by law?
I think power restriction would be more effective. Under 21s shouldn’t be able to own a car with a power output greater than 65bhp. Yes they can still get up to motorway speeds, but it’s much more difficult for them to do that in built up areas. It ridiculous seeing young drivers in 300bhp+ cars that can do 90mph almost anywhere.
> Mr King says this could also help bring down insurance premiums for new drivers.
Wishful thinking, the companies involved will use any excuse to charge an arm and a leg. Not saying EV and new car claims hasn’t contributed to the increased premiums but I feel like the companies are hiding behind this excuse 70% of the time
Adding extra restrictions to people who’ve just passed their test is just the government admitting their driving tests arent good enough at weeding out the people who really shouldnt be driving
> While the government isn’t thought to be considering the idea
This entire comment section is just people jumping up and down whining about something that almost certainly won’t happen.
And you complain about Daily Mail commenters….
Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-fucking-dum
This country loves nothing more than restricting the rights and freedoms of normal fucking people.
However, ask them to do anything about actual criminals then any imposition of force from the state is considered a human rights abuse tantamount to Guantanamo.
Yeah, this is bs. You pass the test, you buy a car, and you decide who travels with you. The government should have zero say in this. Stop with this idiotic “nanny state” approach.
I don’t like the point some of these young people are making, that they aren’t all reckless drivers. Sure, most of them aren’t, but they ARE inexperienced, perhaps unconsciously wanting to impress their mates, etc. Not *intentionally* reckless, but particularly prone to making mistakes, putting themselves into situations they aren’t comfortable with, or getting distracted.
There’s a reason their insurance premiums are high, why people say that you really learn how to drive after you pass your test, why people expect their first cars to get a bit scraped up, etc.
The whole “driving a sibling to school” thing though I don’t feel is a massive risk. It’s not the same as a 17 year old having 3 17 year old passengers in the back, potentially distracting them or encouraging them to do dangerous things.
Unsure how this could be effectively implemented though. Maybe time-based (e.g. allowed passengers of a similar age but only during the day)? Maybe age-based, but also with a lower age limit (e.g. maybe limiting 16-21 year olds as passengers)? Maybe not a blanket ban, but a limit of one passenger of this age? Or only a limit on passengers of this age if there are no older passengers also in the vehicle? Perhaps exclusions on any kind of restriction e.g. for those young people who are carers of younger siblings whilst transporting them?
The driving test can never test for this. It can test whether you know the rules of the road & are able to follow them safely. But how can it test how you deal with disruptive passengers, peer pressure, etc? Perhaps some kind of ban / restriction on certain passengers could be enforced, with the option to reduce the time of this restriction by attending some kind of course? Obviously wishful thinking with the current state of things but a thought.
Almost the only kids I knew personally who died during my own childhood, were in exactly this situation of a car full of under-21s. Two separate incidents. In one of them, a kid decide to race home the parents of a girl he’d just met that night, and lost control of the car. Killed his best friend and one of the girls. The other I don’t know the details of, but he went to my secondary school, and lived on my bus route.
The visceral reaction that this is “bad” appeals to the emotional sense of fairness and everyone thinking they are an exception to the average.
It is six months that we are asking a new young driver to exercise some forbearance.
Then again this is same population that justifies vapes as a “quitting aid” while seeing a brand new generation who had never smoked – suddenly vaping. Hardly responds to facts and stats.
I understand the POV of the government but it is government overreach. It is not the business of the government to dictate this. If they are wanting to avoid this, they would be better off simply raising the age for driving to over 21, rather than implementing more authoritarian nonsense.
Comments are closed.