h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The father of a road accident victim has called for an end to the driving test and a period of continuous assessment instead. Is this a good idea?

Can we link road safety and environmentalism together to reduce the number of drivers on the road and reduce accidents?

I see some merit in the continuous assessment idea (200 hours with an experienced driver), but I have long advocated a two part test similar to motorbikes. After passing the first test, a driver is restricted to a small & underpowered car for a period before sitting a second test.

What do others here think? What road safety initiatives do you think actually work? Do they do things better in other countries?

I work for a car insurance company (well, I say 'work', I mean 'am employed by'). For 17 yr old boys, a new policy will typically be £2-3k, on a 1-1.4 litre engine. Essentially this is because insurance companies think they'll probably crash. Says all you need to know really.

>>continuous assessment idea<<

Nah, sounds like too much nannying and interference in our lives to me.

Seriously it would cost loads to implement and be one more thing for traffic police to check up on. I'd just like to see a few more traffic police round here monitoring stuff like speeding in built up areas, humps not withstanding, that people just do because they think they can get away with it, because of the lack of policing.

Hidden speed cameras. Preferrably ones which can be moved from time to time. That'd stop those who race along then slam on their brakes when they get to a speed camera, then speed up again as soon as they pass it. Why do the cameras need to be obvious? The law says you go at no more than this speed on this stretch of road - why does it also have to say, oh and on this bit we're watching you?

Deb

On the same principle that the police don't just strong arm the sat-nav companies for the data?

That's what I'd do if I was a bad ass type, loose canon maverick traffic warden.

We have a graduated drivers licence system in NZ:

1. pass a written test and get a learners licence. The restrictions are zero alcohol limit for under 20s, and you can only drive with a fully licenced (for at least 2 years) driver as supervisor in the passenger seat. You have to use L plates on the car.

2. After 6 months you can apply for a restricted licence. You have to pass a practical test. The restrictions are same alcohol limit; you can't drive on your own between 10pm and 5am when you need a supervisor (as above); you can only carry passengers if you have a supervisor in the front passenger seat.

3. After 18 months for under 25s or 6 months for over 25s, on restricted, you can get a full licence. You have to sit an extensive practical test. The wait time can be reduced if you go to an approved driver trainer.


As you can see, alot of those restrictions are aimed at young people. You can get your learners licence at 15 (previously you could get your full licence at 15). It's pretty common here for young men to kill themselves and others in car accidents.

We've had that graduated system for maybe 10 years? I don't know how much difference it's made as other factors come into play - increased speed limit, increased access to fast and/or cheap cars will have affected the road toll as well. I think the graduated system is a good idea because young people don't have the same skills of decision making that older people do.

Personally I'm in favour of reducing the speed limit back to 80km/hr. Speed kills and it seems that modern cars are making that worse - people feel safer and so drive faster and take more risks.

oh yeah, and cell phones. ban em.

Well if banning anything works as well in NZ as it does here, lets not bother. Ask Reddy Freddy.

Actually I am the only person I know that doesn't have one. I just don't like the idea that I am always potentially contactable. I just don't get this mobile thing. And even though its illegal here to talk on your mobile whilst driving, I've yet to leave my house without seeing someone driving and chatting on their phone.

So for sure we actually need more traffic police to actually enforce the laws we already have.

If you drop down to the bottom of this link you'll see the figures and reasons for the drop in the road toll in NZ in the 90s (the first time the road toll had dropped). Mostly it was to do with increased policing, speed cameras, and a full-on advertising campaign (lots of graphic tv ads about things that people do that cause accidents and the consequences of that).

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/fascinating-facts/20th-century-roadtoll.html

I just got a cell phone for the first time. It's a bloody pain. And people have quite different expectations of how I will use it than I do (eg it's turned off for the last 24 hours). It will be useful at certain times, which is why I got it, but it certainly has it's downsides.

>> Well if banning anything works as well in NZ as it does here, lets not bother. Ask Reddy Freddy. <<

I'm a little confuzzled by this statement.

RF

Didn't you make some jokes about, 'oh lets ban guns, lets ban x y z? etc on one of the rugby threads? I read it that you thought banning anything was pretty pointless. Finishing off with, banning Gordon Brown, which I therefore agreed to...

That's what I was referring to.

Yes, I do think "banning" things is pretty pointless.

There was also a flurry of "what would you ban?" threads a few months ago, where I tried to point out the futility of "bans". When will people ever learn, eh?

I say we ban the use of the word "ban".

In terms of driving, though...why don't we reduce the risk factors nad make the earliest age you can drive a car 30? Why do 17-year-olds so desperately need to drive? Take a for bob's sake.

RF

Spoken like a true city-dweller

I was talking about something similar recently. I thought that limiting the size of the engine new drivers were allowed to use for so many years and a certain age - so nothing over 1300cc until you've been driving three years AND are 25 was a good idea.

Added to that, I've always thought driving licences shouldn't be for life, but for ten years and then a retest - with a little 'grace' to get back up to scratch and test again before a licence is removed.

And car makers should contribute to the costs, because without drivers, there would be no car owners!

The New Zealand idea sounds good, you make the licence difficult to get, and allow more resposibility gradually.

As mentioned above though, I think the greatest improvement in driving standards would come with continual assesment and re-testing.
People drift into bad/dangerous habits over their time as drivers, a little refresher every 5 years or so would make them concentrate, and keep them updated on new laws/hazards and developments.

Failing that......only issue licences to women

I'm sure that there are road rules I have forgotten in the 25 years since I sat my licence Plus the new rules that have come in since then.


Although, we have a right hand rule here (give way to the right, which gets tricky for some people if there are any cars turning a corner). Many people that have passed their written and practical test still don't know how that works, irrespective of how long or short ago they were tested.

The 'rules' are updated here as well, the Highway Code has just been updated for the first time in seven years, so next time I'm in a bookshop I'll be buying a copy. Although there is the internet, I prefer to have the book too.

I think there are some good ideas there, like staged testing, not taking passengers until a certain age/ability. Raising the age might be good too, although I do appreciate the problems in areas with poor or no public transport - but why shouldn't parents expect to take some responsibility for what their under 18s are doing?

The other main problem to address is the number of youngsters driving with no licence or insurance. That needs better policing & parental involvement.