M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike P on 29 Jun 2010 06:24 On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 > > bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the > >> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. > >> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older > >> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back > >> these facts up. > > > I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton > > car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the > > probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident > > rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't > > be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they > > indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. > > > B2003 > > Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving > licence then? I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give them *big* incentives not to crash.. Mike P
From: boltar2003 on 29 Jun 2010 06:27 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:53 +0100 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >licence then? 20 or 21. Teenagers are in general just too immature and irresponsible. I know I was. I'd be happy with them still being able to ride a small moped up to 21 since on that they only risk killing themselves and in the process of riding it they'd become a lot more road aware. B2003
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 06:32 Mike P wrote: > On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 >>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >>>> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >>>> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older >>>> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back >>>> these facts up. >>> I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton >>> car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the >>> probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident >>> rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't >>> be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they >>> indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. >>> B2003 >> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >> licence then? > > I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for > 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. > Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give > them *big* incentives not to crash.. > > Mike P > > Hmm, sounds reasonable and do-able. You'd need to have the insurance companies on their side though, ie; lower premiums. Bod
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 06:36 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:53 +0100 > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >> licence then? > > 20 or 21. Teenagers are in general just too immature and irresponsible. I know > I was. I'd be happy with them still being able to ride a small moped up to 21 > since on that they only risk killing themselves and in the process of riding > it they'd become a lot more road aware. > > B2003 > > But you'd get the reaction from many, that youngsters of 18 can fight for their country but are not old enough to drive a car, not fair etc. Bod
From: Mike P on 29 Jun 2010 06:44
On 29 June, 11:32, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Mike P wrote: > > On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > >>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 > >>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the > >>>> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. > >>>> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older > >>>> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back > >>>> these facts up. > >>> I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton > >>> car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the > >>> probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident > >>> rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't > >>> be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they > >>> indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. > >>> B2003 > >> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving > >> licence then? > > > I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can drive for > > 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new motorbike riders. > > Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp for 2 years and give > > them *big* incentives not to crash.. > > > Mike P > > Hmm, sounds reasonable and do-able. You'd need to have the insurance > companies on their side though, ie; lower premiums. They do (or did) something similar in Italy, hence you can (or could) buy some really strange cars you couldn't buy anywhere else. A 1.1 litre Citroen BX was one I remember.. The premiums could be slightly less to start with, but with a promised big reduction if after the qualifying period of 2 or 3 years they are accident and points free. I don't believe the present system of 6 points before 2 years and you retake your test again makes a blind bit of difference. Those who are going to drive illegally will drive illegally whatever.. Mike P |