Advanced Driving Licence
Discussion
I know we have Advanced driving lessons which i believe gives you a certificate upon passing and hopefully lower insurance, I will hopefully be going for mine soon as i have the recent 'pass plus', and just wish to be that bit better at driving (doesn't everyone?), anyway, i was thinking...
Maybe there could be a scheme whereas like the Advanced driving lessons (call it ADL), you also went through rigerous speeding lessons on a race track for instance, upon passing this test (with a minimum of say 3 lessons, maybe more), you not only received a certificate for your time (and hard earned cash), but also an 'Advanced Licence', which allowed you to drive faster on roads (where appropriate), to say, 15miles above the limit (50+ speed limit only?).
Of course this would need to be though out more and ideas developed, but its a thought atleast. Then people who aren't capable of controlling a car at high speed are not zipping round, though us that can are able to go that bit faster...
Any ideas/flames/p*ss takes??
Maybe there could be a scheme whereas like the Advanced driving lessons (call it ADL), you also went through rigerous speeding lessons on a race track for instance, upon passing this test (with a minimum of say 3 lessons, maybe more), you not only received a certificate for your time (and hard earned cash), but also an 'Advanced Licence', which allowed you to drive faster on roads (where appropriate), to say, 15miles above the limit (50+ speed limit only?).
Of course this would need to be though out more and ideas developed, but its a thought atleast. Then people who aren't capable of controlling a car at high speed are not zipping round, though us that can are able to go that bit faster...
Any ideas/flames/p*ss takes??
It would be impossible to enforce different speed limits for different drivers.
Far more plausible would be insurers refusing to insure you for a performance car unless you can prove further driver training. The government would have to get involved, though. Since its unlikely to generate revenue though, I can't see it happening.
Far more plausible would be insurers refusing to insure you for a performance car unless you can prove further driver training. The government would have to get involved, though. Since its unlikely to generate revenue though, I can't see it happening.
Where would the limits begin on performance cars and for what ages?
I only have a 2000 Almera 1.5 twin cam (does the twin cam even do anything?), yet it can reach 120..
would that mean i wasn't allowed to drive it cos im 19?
I am not unsafe at driving, and quite capable of controlling my car at 120, im not a boy racer, nor do i have a big head, but know my cars limits, know my own limits, and never push them.
If i don't think its safe, i don't do it... but because my car reaches 120, would i be discriminated?
blabbering over,
hehe
I only have a 2000 Almera 1.5 twin cam (does the twin cam even do anything?), yet it can reach 120..
would that mean i wasn't allowed to drive it cos im 19?
I am not unsafe at driving, and quite capable of controlling my car at 120, im not a boy racer, nor do i have a big head, but know my cars limits, know my own limits, and never push them.
If i don't think its safe, i don't do it... but because my car reaches 120, would i be discriminated?
blabbering over,
heheJon - would generate loads of revenue if the government thought it through, as well as creating jobs.... make it a goverment backed scheme, with newly created test centres (all needing admin staff etc..) and the like..
Im not sure 'enforceablility' for advanced licenses would be a problem - tell me how they can really enforce the current ones? Ive NEVER been asked to show mine (and believe me Ive spent a fair fwe days talking to various arms of the law
)
WoodE - I think the problem would be, and already is, is that whilst YOU might be good enough to do 120, the very old, short-sighted, drives 5 miles a year at 5 miles a hour, middle lane driver isnt able to cope with reacting to you doing that speed (does that make sense?) Therefore, you'd end up with accidents caused by 'not advanced drivers' hitting very rapid 'advanced' drivers, cos they didnt understand the possible speeds you were going...
any of that make sense?!!
N
Im not sure 'enforceablility' for advanced licenses would be a problem - tell me how they can really enforce the current ones? Ive NEVER been asked to show mine (and believe me Ive spent a fair fwe days talking to various arms of the law
) WoodE - I think the problem would be, and already is, is that whilst YOU might be good enough to do 120, the very old, short-sighted, drives 5 miles a year at 5 miles a hour, middle lane driver isnt able to cope with reacting to you doing that speed (does that make sense?) Therefore, you'd end up with accidents caused by 'not advanced drivers' hitting very rapid 'advanced' drivers, cos they didnt understand the possible speeds you were going...
any of that make sense?!!
N
On the point of note gererating revenue - I'm sure the government would be open to a CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis), if such a thing could show that better qualified drivers reduced accidents -> injuries -> strain on the NHS / Police / Courts by a financial value greatly in excess of the cost of starting the licence, they might listen.
However, proving something like that without having a pilot scheme would be rather tricky......
Still think its a good idea, why not just use the insurance categories (eg want to drive group 15 cars and above? - get an advanced licence....)
Still, I think I'd speak for a lot of people here when I say that perhaps we should just make the ordinary licence much more rigorous, so that everbody on the road is better equipped to drive...
However, proving something like that without having a pilot scheme would be rather tricky......
Still think its a good idea, why not just use the insurance categories (eg want to drive group 15 cars and above? - get an advanced licence....)
Still, I think I'd speak for a lot of people here when I say that perhaps we should just make the ordinary licence much more rigorous, so that everbody on the road is better equipped to drive...
Surely that would only benefit new drivers. What about all the old duffers like my grandparents who have never even taken a test because driving licenses were handed out to anyone and everyone during the war?
Seriously though, I don't think there are any easy answers. Its further compounded by the fact that it is often the worst & most dangerous drivers who think they're "pretty good drivers" and wouldn't do advanced driver training if they were dragged there by their hair and handcuffed to the steering wheel with an advanced driving instructor in the passenger seat. One of the reasons that advanced driver training works is that the person receiving the training invariably wants to be there and acknowledges that they have things to learn. The old adage of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" springs to mind.
I still believe that driver training is the way to go though - both by raising the standard required to pass on new licenses and financially encouraging advanced drivers and/or penalising those who are not with insurance premiums. Its not ideal, but its the only idea that has even a vague chance of working.
But as I said, there are no real easy answers. How depressing.
Edited by JonRB on Monday 12th November 13:41
Seriously though, I don't think there are any easy answers. Its further compounded by the fact that it is often the worst & most dangerous drivers who think they're "pretty good drivers" and wouldn't do advanced driver training if they were dragged there by their hair and handcuffed to the steering wheel with an advanced driving instructor in the passenger seat. One of the reasons that advanced driver training works is that the person receiving the training invariably wants to be there and acknowledges that they have things to learn. The old adage of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" springs to mind.
I still believe that driver training is the way to go though - both by raising the standard required to pass on new licenses and financially encouraging advanced drivers and/or penalising those who are not with insurance premiums. Its not ideal, but its the only idea that has even a vague chance of working.
But as I said, there are no real easy answers. How depressing.
Edited by JonRB on Monday 12th November 13:41
Agree with the last poster, changes in licensing will always take a long time to bear dividends (ie amount of time it takes for a useful % of people on the roads to have taken new test etc), which is probably why the govt likes the 'speed kills' stuff - quick impact...
Unfortunately long term solutions would be better for all, in the long run, but thats not much use to a govt with a 5year term at best...
Unfortunately long term solutions would be better for all, in the long run, but thats not much use to a govt with a 5year term at best...
quote:
Still think its a good idea, why not just use the insurance categories (eg want to drive group 15 cars and above? - get an advanced licence....)
I don't think that'll necessarily work - there isn't a direct link between insurance group and performance of a vehicle. My other car, a 7 series BMW, is in group 18 (plus or minus one). 0-60? Over 10 seconds. Matched by most family hatches of a much lower insurance grouping. Should I bend it, it'll just cost more to repair (exponentially, I think) hence the higher grouping. I'll probably come out of an accident in better shape having been in that than a shopping hatch too.
Something based on power/weight ratio might work though.
I've said it before, cheaper car insurance should be measured on experience much like pilots. They go on how many hours in the air, therefore experience should be measured in miles.
The more miles covered without a claim, the cheaper the insurance. This would stop all these bad drivers that do little or no miles per year (Mums in 4x4s?) getting the cheaper premiums.
Also, you shouldnt be allowed to jump from a Micra to a Marcos, there should be a stepping stone route with certain cars in bands measured like Marshy said their power to weight ratio, I'm sure pilots have a simular thing with the type of plane they can fly without having a fixed number of hours in the model below.
If this sort of process was put into place, the results of an accident per mile survey would soon proove who the UKS real bad drivers are
The more miles covered without a claim, the cheaper the insurance. This would stop all these bad drivers that do little or no miles per year (Mums in 4x4s?) getting the cheaper premiums.
Also, you shouldnt be allowed to jump from a Micra to a Marcos, there should be a stepping stone route with certain cars in bands measured like Marshy said their power to weight ratio, I'm sure pilots have a simular thing with the type of plane they can fly without having a fixed number of hours in the model below.
If this sort of process was put into place, the results of an accident per mile survey would soon proove who the UKS real bad drivers are
Again, the problem is how could you enforce it? How could you demonstrate that you'd driven a particular distance between claims? You'd need a personal tacho. It's different for pilots coz they have to fill in flight plans and log books every time they get into and out of a plane.
We already have different types of UK driver license for different classes of vehicle ... i.e. I can't drive an HGV having passed a test in a Metro ... why not create a new license category for high performance cars?
It would raise the kudos of owning a performance car, and set a challenge for the young boy racer brigade who might take the more advanced test to impress their mates. It might make it cool for the younger, accident-prone drivers to get better educated behind the wheel.
We already have different types of UK driver license for different classes of vehicle ... i.e. I can't drive an HGV having passed a test in a Metro ... why not create a new license category for high performance cars?
It would raise the kudos of owning a performance car, and set a challenge for the young boy racer brigade who might take the more advanced test to impress their mates. It might make it cool for the younger, accident-prone drivers to get better educated behind the wheel.
Just suppose that everyone had to pay the full cost of their test, and that tests had to be taken every three years up to the age of thirty, then every ten years until sixty, then every three years thereafter. Then suppose that there were two pass grades; Provisional and Full, and that Provisional licence holders had to have a screw-on red 'P' on their number plates, with a penalty of £1,000 for failing to display it.
The test would have to be much more difficult than it is now for this to work, but the effect would be dramatic. Everyone would try their utmost to develope their skills - mainly out of sheer pride, and the end-product would be a far better standard of driving.
I don't think you could have differential speed limits, but with better driving there would be a good case for raising the limit on motorways and other fast roads. And reduced premiums for Full licence holders.
Nice idea - but all that you get is more "fake" test passes. If there is a financial incentive (and a pretty hefty one at that) to "pass" then those idiots with too much money and no driving skills will still pay other people to take the test for them.
The new photo-id cards that are now part of the driving license are not impossible to forge and in some ways make it even easier.
If it is going to cost you £500 extra a year to insure your car if you don't get the higher grade license that you have to retake every X years (take 3 as an example) then it is easily worth paying someone £1000 to take the test for you. If the gap between test goes up to 10 years then it becomes VERY worthwhile.
So how does that "improve" the standard of driving? The answer is, of course, that it doesn't. Does it catch the huge number of people who drive a car without a license, tax or insurance - a blatantly obvious no!
With the cost of insurance going through the roof anyway, pushing the number of uninsured drivers up isn't the whole concept of a multi-grade license scheme utterly pointless?
Am i just being too cynical?
The new photo-id cards that are now part of the driving license are not impossible to forge and in some ways make it even easier.
If it is going to cost you £500 extra a year to insure your car if you don't get the higher grade license that you have to retake every X years (take 3 as an example) then it is easily worth paying someone £1000 to take the test for you. If the gap between test goes up to 10 years then it becomes VERY worthwhile.
So how does that "improve" the standard of driving? The answer is, of course, that it doesn't. Does it catch the huge number of people who drive a car without a license, tax or insurance - a blatantly obvious no!
With the cost of insurance going through the roof anyway, pushing the number of uninsured drivers up isn't the whole concept of a multi-grade license scheme utterly pointless?
Am i just being too cynical?
Taking the ADL for the reason of reducing your insurance premium I thought was a good idea until I spoke to my insurers Direct Line & then subsequently Tesco. "doesn't make a blind bit of difference" was the reply, when I asked about my Elise. OK, I know that some insurers do offer 5 - 10% discount, but if the are way uncompetitive in the first place this will make no difference to choice of insurer (on price alone). I think that taking the ADL will bring benefits to me, perhaps not if I drove a shopping trolley hatch, but driving a proper sports car it should bring benefits that would improve my driving & habits & therefore why not insurance premium?
CJ
CJ
Its an unfair world, unfortunately.
I took the I.A.M. Advanced Driving test to improve my driving ability, risk management, observation and general safety. Any financial benefits it brings (if any) are "icing on the cake" and merely a bonus, in my view.
Some insurers do offer a discount, especially the specialists. Cheam Insurance (who I insure my TVR with) gave a discount for this and also for being a member of the TVRCC!
I took the I.A.M. Advanced Driving test to improve my driving ability, risk management, observation and general safety. Any financial benefits it brings (if any) are "icing on the cake" and merely a bonus, in my view.
Some insurers do offer a discount, especially the specialists. Cheam Insurance (who I insure my TVR with) gave a discount for this and also for being a member of the TVRCC!
quote:
Some insurers do offer a discount, especially the specialists. Cheam Insurance (who I insure my TVR with) gave a discount for this and also for being a member of the TVRCC!
It was explained to me that the TVRCC scheme also requires "qualifying experience" before you will be covered for a TVR (not sure if that means all, or just bigger V8s?). I was also told that a BMW or similar, with ABS, EBA, ASC, TC, etc does not count, as driver skill not software is what counts (similar to how F1 should be , me thinks).
Don't bikers have an insanely complex multi-tier licence arrangement already? If this is enforceable then I can't see why car drivers shouldn't have their liberties infringed in a similar way.
How about changing licences for a GPS equipped smart card. Make it an offence not to carry this while driving.
Speed cameras can interrogate a central database to determine who is driving the car that just went past, and what speed they are allowed. If it can't, then its the lowest speed and the registered owner cops it as at present.
Its all possible - but wouldn't happen. Cost, complexity, total lack of will for it to happen. Much easier to stick with "speed kills" and reap the revenue.
How about changing licences for a GPS equipped smart card. Make it an offence not to carry this while driving.
Speed cameras can interrogate a central database to determine who is driving the car that just went past, and what speed they are allowed. If it can't, then its the lowest speed and the registered owner cops it as at present.
Its all possible - but wouldn't happen. Cost, complexity, total lack of will for it to happen. Much easier to stick with "speed kills" and reap the revenue.
quote:Interesting. This wasn't mentioned to me. Either Cheam don't operate this, or they felt that 14 years driving experience with 5 of those in a 201bhp Corrado VR6 was sufficient.
It was explained to me that the TVRCC scheme also requires "qualifying experience" before you will be covered for a TVR
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff