AA says no passengers for youngsters
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c361g6nz5j1o
The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
I can understand that having a car full of teens can lead to distraction and "showing off", but a blanket ban would prevent many legitimate trips - for example my daughter is in a rowing team that competes all over the South West. She car shares with three other team members, who would all have to drive themselves if such a ban came into force. This would quadruple the number of cars for the trip (and the cost).
The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
I can understand that having a car full of teens can lead to distraction and "showing off", but a blanket ban would prevent many legitimate trips - for example my daughter is in a rowing team that competes all over the South West. She car shares with three other team members, who would all have to drive themselves if such a ban came into force. This would quadruple the number of cars for the trip (and the cost).
boyse7en said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c361g6nz5j1o
The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
I can understand that having a car full of teens can lead to distraction and "showing off", but a blanket ban would prevent many legitimate trips - for example my daughter is in a rowing team that competes all over the South West. She car shares with three other team members, who would all have to drive themselves if such a ban came into force. This would quadruple the number of cars for the trip (and the cost).
It's one of those conundrums with no obvious answer. The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
I can understand that having a car full of teens can lead to distraction and "showing off", but a blanket ban would prevent many legitimate trips - for example my daughter is in a rowing team that competes all over the South West. She car shares with three other team members, who would all have to drive themselves if such a ban came into force. This would quadruple the number of cars for the trip (and the cost).
Young drivers (especially young men) are much more likely to have serious accidents. Young drivers of cars full of other youngsters (especially young men) are even more likely to be involved in serious accidents. And when that happens you can end up with a car-load of 19-year olds either dead or with life-changing injuries thanks to a moment of youthful lack of self- (and car) control and peer pressure.
But it not only only smells of nannying and overreach but, as you say, will severely cramp the social lives of a lot of young adults in areas where public transport can't pick up the slack (where they're more likely to drive as soon as they can and give lifts to their peers).
File it in the "what price eliminating tragic but actually quite rare outcomes at the every day detriment of a much larger group ?" category and I genuinely don't know.
It has always surprised me that there’s no power limit for newly qualified drivers a la bikes. My first car was a mighty 47bhp Metro and I dread to think what would have happened if some of the cars around today had been then.
Insurance as ever is the kicker, but if you have the money there’s nothing else stopping you.
Insurance as ever is the kicker, but if you have the money there’s nothing else stopping you.
The RAC are doing something similar
https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/S...
It was also discussed on J Vine today and has been mooted many times before.
This has come back to the surface following the death of the 4 boys who's inquest is running at present.
All such suggestions are based on legislation being cheap and easy and the powers that be can say they have taken action.
The fact it has countless failings and will not achieve the desired outcome is ignored.
The first point is it is broadly un-monitorable and therefore wont be enforced.
There would have to be exceptions like the 20 year old single mother of 3 children, how about students going to college or work colleagues going to other places of work.
4 youngsters go out for an evening, 1 is designated driver 3 drink. New system 4 cars.
4 youngsters in 4 cars is otherwise known as a race.
4 cars is not going to achieve net zero.
The better route is to teach young people to be safe on the roads.
in France Germany and Canada they can start to learn at 16 but can not take a test to drive unsupervised till 17. This gives them a potential 12 months of experience.
https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/S...
It was also discussed on J Vine today and has been mooted many times before.
This has come back to the surface following the death of the 4 boys who's inquest is running at present.
All such suggestions are based on legislation being cheap and easy and the powers that be can say they have taken action.
The fact it has countless failings and will not achieve the desired outcome is ignored.
The first point is it is broadly un-monitorable and therefore wont be enforced.
There would have to be exceptions like the 20 year old single mother of 3 children, how about students going to college or work colleagues going to other places of work.
4 youngsters go out for an evening, 1 is designated driver 3 drink. New system 4 cars.
4 youngsters in 4 cars is otherwise known as a race.
4 cars is not going to achieve net zero.
The better route is to teach young people to be safe on the roads.
in France Germany and Canada they can start to learn at 16 but can not take a test to drive unsupervised till 17. This gives them a potential 12 months of experience.
ziggy328 said:
I think less and less youngsters really care about driving now though, so I think it's a diminishing problem.
I think that if you look outside the major metropolitan centres of the UK, teens are still pretty keen to be able to drive and be self-mobile. Certainly all my daughter's friends are learning to drive as soon as finances allow once they get past 17. They need it to get a job or go to college.Lots of valid points and observations above. It's not a simple thing in my opinion, there is no 100% solution other than staying at home. I can only add more observations.
Modern cars will be more powerful but are much safer with all the passive & active safety features.
Originally this no passenger rule was suggested as a night time rule only. They seem to be going for anytime now if I understand correctly.
I've witnessed & dealt with one of these accidents with the worst possible outcome. A 1.0 litre car but quite an old one. No boys involved by the way.
Modern cars will be more powerful but are much safer with all the passive & active safety features.
Originally this no passenger rule was suggested as a night time rule only. They seem to be going for anytime now if I understand correctly.
I've witnessed & dealt with one of these accidents with the worst possible outcome. A 1.0 litre car but quite an old one. No boys involved by the way.
What's going to be more safe, 4 plonkers in one car being silly or 2 in two cars being silly?
Do the extra people in back have more of a negative impact than just one passenger?
We have a lot of kids wiping out into fields in the early hours of weekend mornings around here, almost as many as pissed adults who absolutely love nothing more than a skinful and then driving straight in in a corner but would those young drivers be any slower with just one passenger?
These multi passenger crashes such as the one this article is in response to are desperately sad and if a simple law change will cut them then it should certainly be considered but so should the potential consequences of enacting such a change.
In short, there is a clear issue but not a particularly clear answer.
Do the extra people in back have more of a negative impact than just one passenger?
We have a lot of kids wiping out into fields in the early hours of weekend mornings around here, almost as many as pissed adults who absolutely love nothing more than a skinful and then driving straight in in a corner but would those young drivers be any slower with just one passenger?
These multi passenger crashes such as the one this article is in response to are desperately sad and if a simple law change will cut them then it should certainly be considered but so should the potential consequences of enacting such a change.
In short, there is a clear issue but not a particularly clear answer.
Hand on heart, I know I should not have been carrying young passengers when I was 18. Fine with the parents on board , but too keen to press on and show off my awful early heel and toeing. Misreading the road , I recall spinning 360 degrees into a (thankfully empty) main road with 3 lads on board who I was showing off to.
I knew two families , one well, who lost sons in accidents where they were passengers to other teenager drivers , one a girl and one a boy and although it doesn't make my argument stronger, I mention it because sometimes there's a cavalier attitude to road deaths, as if we were fighter pilots (and not blokes in civilian jobs driving Fiestas). Suffice it to say that the impact on a family is incalculable, and permanent .
I knew two families , one well, who lost sons in accidents where they were passengers to other teenager drivers , one a girl and one a boy and although it doesn't make my argument stronger, I mention it because sometimes there's a cavalier attitude to road deaths, as if we were fighter pilots (and not blokes in civilian jobs driving Fiestas). Suffice it to say that the impact on a family is incalculable, and permanent .
Lots of good and well-considered points here.
Perhaps worth noting that the AA are only proposing this restriction for the first six months after passing their test, not until they turn 21. So a 17 year old could still potentially carry friends, it just means they have to get six months' experience driving alone / with older passengers first. So it pushes back the convenience of being able to drive together for six months longer after passing.
At the same time, is the proportion of serious accidents really so much higher in just the first six months? I'm not convinced it would make that much difference. And it would be hard to enforce unless a copper stopped a carful of youngsters for another reason, you don't know by looking if the driver has passed their test over six months ago.
boyse7en said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c361g6nz5j1o
The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
Good idea, but needs more refinement. A young parent aged 20 can't take their kid to playgroup? A couple aged 20 can't go out together. Perhaps allow one passenger under 21. The AA is proposing that drivers under 21 should be banned from carrying passengers who are also under 21 in a bid to reduce accidents.
Good idea? Or over the top interference?
boyse7en said:
ziggy328 said:
I think less and less youngsters really care about driving now though, so I think it's a diminishing problem.
I think that if you look outside the major metropolitan centres of the UK, teens are still pretty keen to be able to drive and be self-mobile. Certainly all my daughter's friends are learning to drive as soon as finances allow once they get past 17. They need it to get a job or go to college.From what I heard on BBC News, the proposal is just for the first 6 months after passing the test.
I think the problem has got worse since youngsters stopped getting mopeds at 16, followed by a 125 (or 250 back in the day) at 17.
I got my first moped on my 16th birthday back in 1973, and a 250 as soon as I turned 17.
I got all my stupidity and crashing out of my system before I ever drove a car.
Just me on the bike, just me that got hurt if I crashed.
Fortunately, despite a few accidents, the worst I ever got was a cut elbow. Same with the lads I used to hang out with. We did silly things, but at relatively low speeds.
Fall off a moped at 30-ish a couple of times, and you learn the lesson.
I think the problem has got worse since youngsters stopped getting mopeds at 16, followed by a 125 (or 250 back in the day) at 17.
I got my first moped on my 16th birthday back in 1973, and a 250 as soon as I turned 17.
I got all my stupidity and crashing out of my system before I ever drove a car.
Just me on the bike, just me that got hurt if I crashed.
Fortunately, despite a few accidents, the worst I ever got was a cut elbow. Same with the lads I used to hang out with. We did silly things, but at relatively low speeds.
Fall off a moped at 30-ish a couple of times, and you learn the lesson.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff