me and a couple of mates were discussing how we can stop young people wrecking themselves in their souped up corsas/saxos etc, we came to the decision for the first 2 yrs of driving(whatever the age) people should be restricted in the power/engine size of cars i.e. 1 litre with speed restrictor until they hae gained experience and only able too carry max one passenger.........any feelings??

that wont stop bodykit stuff though :confused: and i doubt many 18-20 yr olds could afford the insurence for power adding mods.

Disagree.

I am 19. I passed my test when I was 17 and I drive a Fabia v/RS. I have had no incidents whatsoever and have plenty of experience carrying passengers in a wide range of conditions.

The Fabia v/RS is a very powerful car for a young driver, but I know when and where the power is (in)appropriate to use. I do not speed.

I do see your point for limiting engine size and power as it is a sensible idea but the solution is in driver attitude and training.

Nope , there is a woefully inadequate choice of cars with a 1 litre engine and that would unfairly restrict people's choice of vehicle.

A speed restrictor would be expensive for no good reason and would just turn them into mobile roadblocks on NSL roads.

As for only carrying one passenger , there are no end of times when people need to do this and anyway , the extra weight shouldd slow them down.

Insurance costs do a good job of making fast cars inaccessible to new drivers and it's inexperience , bad attitude to driving and misjudging the situation that causes most "new driver" accidents and they can kill you even in a 1.1 litre saxo.

Come to think of it I could name at least one "advanced" driver who only avoided killing himself recently through blind chance after making a mess of an overtake

I agree entireley and I have disussed this on here many times. Similar to motor bike rules. when you get to an age where you can drive a more powerful car then you should have to take an advanced driving test suited to high powered cars.

Similar to motor bike rules. .

And similar to motorbike rules again it would take some of them no time at all to learn how to de-restrict the car, It would never be enforced however i do agree with the sentiment,

Even having been a 17 year old not all too long ago and driving cars with far more power than i have at current and never having a (Serious) accident i still agree

i disagree im 19 drive a fabia vrs and other much faster and powerful cars every day........ like what harry said its more about attitude of the driver.

But i do agree that souped up corsas and saxos that want to race eveywhere should have there tyres let down:thumbup:

I agree entireley and I have disussed this on here many times. Similar to motor bike rules. when you get to an age where you can drive a more powerful car then you should have to take an advanced driving test suited to high powered cars.

Bikes however have a farr higher power to weight ratio to cars.

Even a 33bhp limited bike will still do a 6 second 0-60 sprint.

Disagree.

I am 19. I passed my test when I was 17 and I drive a Fabia v/RS. I have had no incidents whatsoever and have plenty of experience carrying passengers in a wide range of conditions.

The Fabia v/RS is a very powerful car for a young driver' date=' but I know when and where the power is (in)appropriate to use. I do not speed.

I do see your point for limiting engine size and power as it is a sensible idea but the solution is in driver attitude and training.[/quote']

I'm a driving instructor, and agree with this,(the above post that is!) I have seen SO many youg drivers abilities, and some of them are perfectly safe and controlled, but some of them are an accident waiting to happen... I agree with the point of driver attitude and training... ALL pupils should be made to do more driver training to help them gain experiance.... maybe a compulsary pass plus course ect....... (if done properly!)

note: restricting engine size wont help to slow things, power maybe, I had a fiat unto turbo, bleed valve fitted 140bhp in a car that weighs as much as a crisp packet, with no brakes or handling! that car was a 1.3 litre.....

I guess you're saying that those provisos should be applied to ligitimately qualified and insured drivers. I'm not sure how they'd be enforced re those who aren't.

IMO Legit young people don't need to be saved from wrecking themselves - they are usually working towards a no-claims reduced insurance premium.

Nuff said, unless you are referring to those with wealthy parents, in which case regulations would be fairly irrelevant wouldn't they?

Just not sure how you think those things would work in practical terms :confused:

Mo

Disagree.... even a 1.0 car driver can go up to 140 or 160 km/h and die in an accident..

How would I do my job if I was restricted to 1 litre engines? At the moment I should not drive cars with a bigger than 2 litre engines, but I still have to daily.

I guess if you are determined to drive like an idiot, then the size of car does not make a diffrence. We can only hope that when these people kill themselves they do not take others with them.

I very strongly think that driver training tests should be more involved but not just for youngsters. My first car was a GTI when I was a teenager and that was about as quick as it gets for that time, and I took a lot more pride in my driving back then.

I think all drivers should be periodically tested on at the very least the Highway Code no matter how old or experienced they are. Peoples driving standards are terrible in this country, and I'm not without my faults!

No I don't think youngsters should have a certain level of car TBH. A certain mindset of youngsters will make them drive like a55holes no matter what, it's just in their nature. It just so happens that the rest of us slightly more level headed individuals can spot them fairly easily and try and avoid them! Okay everyone has their moments but certain youngsters of a certain mental disposition will drive like eejits no matter what they're in every time they get an opportunity, it's probably some kind of mating ritual to other like minded members of the heard.

The incidemce of accidents fatal or otherwise is far far higher in the under 20 range , doing something rather than nothing needs to be done . How about them having to drive with Amber Provisional plates for a year ( we can then avoid them ) and a retest on the Pass Plus lines after 6/12/18 months to retain licence . If it saves a few lives ours or theirs it would be an improvment .

Disagree.

I am 19. I passed my test when I was 17 and I drive a Fabia v/RS. I have had no incidents whatsoever and have plenty of experience carrying passengers in a wide range of conditions.

The Fabia v/RS is a very powerful car for a young driver' date=' but I know when and where the power is (in)appropriate to use. I do not speed.

I do see your point for limiting engine size and power as it is a sensible idea but the solution is in driver attitude and training.[/quote']

Are you sure you're not actually 59?

-Be careful what you claim....we've all done things we regret later on.

I couldn't afford a car until I left university, but drove my parents', friend's and rental cars, possibly not always as well as I should....

People I knew with their own cars did crash them. Having a friend killed in a road accident at the age of 17 made me stop and think.

In most cases, teenagers can't afford 'fast' cars. Other than those with wealthy parents, most drive either old wrecks or something small on finance with 'free' insurance, but they can still be driven fast enough to cause damage

-I wonder if the statistics show strong correlation between car performance and accident rates for new drivers or whether it is the age of the driver has a more significant effect?

I wouldn't have wanted to be restricted, but, having no car, it would have made little difference to me in any case!

Compulsory driver re-testing (say every 1 year until age 21 and then every 5 years afterwards) may help increase the general driving standards of the population - it would however, not be a popular idea but ...

One way of limiting the performance of the cars available would be to require additional tests / re-training if the power levels of the car exceed a certain level or if transitioning from a FWD to a RWD car (a bit like the civil aerospace requirements of different classes of licences to fly different aircraft or in different conditions [iFR, VFR etc]) This would be difficult to police but may well stop some accidents where the driver is unaware of how the handling characteristics will change with RWD when compared to FWD (most so called 'average drivers' will not know what understeer or oversteer mean, let alone the implications of encountering such conditions in driving)

In short some sort of control would be a good idea but practically impossible to implement let alone police effectively.

Just my 0.02c

Stop trying to wrap these people in cotton wool and protect them from themselves. It doesn't matter how old or how much driver training you give them or how pathetic you make their car - the minute you turn your back they'll be doing donuts and burn-outs in b & q car parks and driving like their pants are on fire outside schools at turfing out time.

as long as they wipe out themselves by wrapping themselves around lamp-posts or headbutting brick walls and don't hurt any innocents, let them get on with it. Fewer tosspots on the roads and their genetic material is removed from the human gene pool too.

I consider it win-win.

I feel the main point is with insurance.

Insurance shouldn't be sooo expensive for youngsters. When i started I was paying

Hi

Compulsory retests gets my vote. Also, how about an insurance and licencing led scheme that rewards drivers who take further and ongoing training?

Last and possibly most controversial, how about deterrent level sentencing? Say, for example, a driver is convicted of dangerous driving that was found to have been the cause of an accident, what about a proper sentence? 5 years minimum would make some of the problem drvers think a bit more before ****ting about.

Chris

I think the points sytem needs enforcing more. Ie, get 3 points within 2 years and bang, no licence and you can't start to learn again for 12 months. And even then you must take an extended licence test.

With so many speed cameras out and about these days, they are bound to catch the idiots, though sadly some people who were just having a bad day. Could help them think a little more.

Stop trying to wrap these people in cotton wool and protect them from themselves. It doesn't matter how old or how much driver training you give them or how pathetic you make their car - the minute you turn your back they'll be doing donuts and burn-outs in b & q car parks and driving like their pants are on fire outside schools at turfing out time.

as long as they wipe out themselves by wrapping themselves around lamp-posts or headbutting brick walls and don't hurt any innocents' date=' let them get on with it. Fewer tosspots on the roads and their genetic material is removed from the human gene pool too.

I consider it win-win.[/quote']

I agree, i'm a great believer in natural selection, we are all far too molly coddled these days, if there weren't so many railings everywhere and things to stop people hurting or killing themselves through their own stupidity we'd all have much more money to spend on more interesting things! although I guess if we look after the dim ones then there will still be people to serve us in McDonalds

It's just a shame that these idiots do occasionaly take some of the master race with them

And similar to motorbike rules again it would take some of them no time at all to learn how to de-restrict the car' date=' It would never be enforced however i do agree with the sentiment,

Even having been a 17 year old not all too long ago and driving cars with far more power than i have at current and never having a (Serious) accident i still agree[/quote']

i never said they were allowed to have higher than 1.1 did i?

they should only be allowed 0- 1.2litres. don't have to de restrict

the thing about the insurance has just gone on-line with the police, all insurance databases are in the police computers, and if a number-plate-recognition camera checks you (normally held in big patrol cars) it flashes up "no insurance".... then they will pull you up.....

the thing about the insurance has just gone on-line with the police, all insurance databases are in the police computers, and if a number-plate-recognition camera checks you (normally held in big patrol cars) it flashes up "no insurance".... then they will pull you up.....

Hi

I reckon this is the most useful application of camera technology to date. Should prove interesting to see just how many uninsured cars / drivers there are out there. It will of course increase the prevelance of car cloning still further.

Chris

Why not raise the age of driving from 17 to 21? It'll get more people off the roads and onto public transport amongst the unemployed. The government will love it.

TBH I remember being 17 and me best mate had just passed his test and bought a 10 year old VW Polo. First thing we did was take it down to the beach and practice driving at perilously high speeds whilst we took turns in lying on the roof of the car trying not to fall off.:eek:

Great fun, but not very sensible at all. IMO the majority of young drivers are out to impress their mates and drive like tuuats as a result.