Last week a coalition of insurance companies, road safety groups and motoring organisations put forward a series of proposals, which, they claim, would reduce road accidents involving young drivers. Part of their plan was to make young drivers take a year of lessons before sitting their test.
In our poll more than half of the respondents voted in favour of a fixed learning period, with 34% agreeing with the 12-month limit, and a further 23% said a six-month period should be enforced. However, 42% believe the existing rules shouldn't be changed.
One in eight licence holders is under 25, yet more than one in four drivers who die are under 25, so we asked whatcar.com readers on how they would like to see young drivers treated. A selection of their views are below.
I'm coming up to my 17th birthday soon and very eager to pass my test. As if it wasn’t already hard enough to pay for the costs of insurance, car etc… the insurance companies are planning to make it even worse for those who are young.
This plan isn't going to increase the skills of younger drivers, but simply remove them from the roads, all in the name of 'better-looking accident figures'. And to also add that you can't take passengers is beyond a joke. Not all young drivers are bad drivers, but if you can pass the test, why be scrutinised afterwards?
If younger drivers are being targeted, then why aren't the insurance companies and road safety campaigners also doing something about the elderly who are 'just as bad', if not worse than younger drivers.
I think that everyone should have a refresher course every so many years to help them to understand the rules of the road and if any new road regulations have been introduced as so many people get confused at junctions, roundabouts, and not understanding what the road markings and sign mean.
If anything, the older generation should be targeted, as I have often seen them be the cause of many bumps as they lose there ability to control the car they're in. So maybe older people should be restricted to what car they should have.
No, I don't think that is a good idea, because it still wouldn't work. Most new drivers I know have taken more than a year of lessons just to pass the test. It is more of the atitude of the driver than the number of months behind the wheel.
Some drivers just want to get from A to B. They drive fine and (almost) never have an accident. Others think they have a rally car and drive everywhere like in The Fast And The Furious. More should be done on teaching them the dangers of speeding on the road instead of being told 'it is dangerous' and being left at that.
I believe that young drivers should pay more insurance if they drive at night and there should be more severe punishments for youger drivers being caught over the alcohol limit.
Young drivers having more powerful cars, carrying passengers and driving at night are not what causes them to have accidents. Disregard for personal saftey and a lack of driving experience are the two main factors.
I am a 19-year-old who has recently passed his test. I plan to purchase a second hand Focus 1.8i Ghia. The performance figures for this car are not startling, however it has enough grunt to ensure that it is safe for motorway driving, and the crash structure is such that it is considerably safer than lower powered superminis of a similar age, reducing the likelihood of my death in an accident.
It would appear to me that younger drivers should be encouraged to have nice cars, that they take pride in (and therefore want to protect), that also protect them (the majority of older superminis were not designed with saftey in mind, and this must add to the death toll of younger drivers). Bringing in draconian legislation will force younger drivers into less safe cars, and increases the novelty value of owning a car (meaning that they will drive any time that they have the opportunity, group together with anyone who does own a car, increasing the number of passengers, etc).
It sounds like a reasonable suggestion that learner drivers should have to take lessons for at least a year, but who will pay for these lessons? I think it is wrong to enforce a minimum of a year and expect learners to pay for them when they may have been capable of passing within for example 6 months of beginning (like myself).
I think that all first time drivers should be limited to engine size and car performance, I don’t see any reason why a learner driver would need for example a car which has a 1.6 petrol engine, I think a maximum of a 1.2/3 would be justifiable, and in terms of diesels then obviously bigger engines should be allowed. However this can cause a lot of confusion with ages of cars, I am 21 and now driver a company Fiesta 06’ 1.4TD, yet my last two cars have been 1.9D and a 1.9TD (Citroen ZX and Xantia) so I think this is more of a problem area.
This is cache, read story here
