The future of learning to drive

[Charlie]

Drivers could also face a stricter drink-drive limit, under the proposals

So it is calling for a three-stage, graduated, system. New drivers would face restrictions for four years:

 

Stage one

A one-year minimum driving period, before the test is taken. Drivers would need to experience a wide range of conditions, including winter driving and night driving.

 

Stage two

After the test is taken, drivers would face restrictions for a further year. The number of passengers they could carry might be limited, and night driving might also be restricted.

 

Stage three

A further two-year probationary period. If during the period a driver receives six penalty points, they would have to take a re-test.

 

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand already have graduated learning for drivers.

 

The RAC Foundation said such countries had seen a significant reduction in the number of young people being killed in accidents.

 

Deaths among 17- to 24-year-olds have fallen by up to 60%, and the number of overall casualties has fallen by up to 32%.

 

In the UK, one in five novice drivers has an accident within six months of passing their test.

 

Source: BBC News

 

 

What do you think about these proposals? The main argument against is no doubt going to be that stage 2 is very hard to police. I don't really think it will be too much of a problem. You're always going to get people who drive before they've passed, drive without insurance, drive without road tax. You can't police driving without a license unless you pull them over but it does happen.

 

I think it's a great idea and exactly what is needed. Even stage one, ensuring people have passed there test and driven in every condition is important. Right now you can pass your test without ever having driven in a city or out on a country road. It's ridiculous.

[Serebii]

I think it's good to do something like this, but Stage One severely limits people.

 

Say I am about to start a family, and thus get an office job. I'll need to drive to do this. With these proposals, I wouldn't be able to sort it out for at least a year which can be detrimental.

 

Night restrictions for a year and passenger restrictions also fall into this. Say I have to work late, suddenly I can't drive home? My wife goes into labour at 2am, I can't drive her to the hospital.

 

Yes, one in five have an accident, but four in five do not. You should not punish the majority for the ineptitude of the minority.

 

A way around it is for there to be a driving centre in each county which has live simulations of various conditions, and tests based on that

Edited July 17, 2013 by Serebii

[Ashley]

How would they go about policing this exactly?

[Ramar]

I think it's a great idea and exactly what is needed. Even stage one, ensuring people have passed there test and driven in every condition is important. Right now you can pass your test without ever having driven in a city or out on a country road. It's ridiculous.

 

I'd never driven in the dark before passing my test. Shit the bed the first time I did drive in the dark, couldn't find the gear stick. Didn't help it was the first time taking the family out for dinner as well.

 

I think it's a good idea. Anything that improves safety for everyone is good with me. And hopefully that would then bring accident numbers down and improve insurance premiums, we can hope...

[Charlie]

I think it's good to do something like this, but Stage One severely limits people.

 

Say I am about to start a family, and thus get an office job. I'll need to drive to do this. With these proposals, I wouldn't be able to sort it out for at least a year which can be detrimental.

 

Night restrictions for a year and passenger restrictions also fall into this. Say I have to work late, suddenly I can't drive home? My wife goes into labour at 2am, I can't drive her to the hospital.

 

Yes, one in five have an accident, but four in five do not. You should not punish the majority for the ineptitude of the minority.

 

A way around it is for there to be a driving centre in each county which has live simulations of various conditions, and tests based on that

 

1 in 5 have an accident and 4 in 5 don't. Those 1 in 5 can harm other people than just themselves, remember. They could cause a massive pile-up and multiple deaths. They could injure pedestrians. It's all about increasing the safety of everyone on the road, not just the new driver.

 

@Ashley - It works fine in other countries. People, believe it or not, do actually respect laws. People without licenses don't go out driving by themself. You can't police against that unless you pull people over and find out.

 

I would guess that a lot of non-drivers are against that, and I can sympathise as it might seem tough on them. I remember when I first passed my test (6 months after turning 17) I was told "the learning starts now" and it was so true. I remember shitting myself the first time going out by myself. I was fortunate enough to have driven in poor conditions before during lessons and with my dad but it was still very hard.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Charlie

[Rummy]

I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. It's worked for a while, no? Admittedly I might have hit some stuff in my first 6 months driving(it's not in the stats), but that was also about 3 years after I passed my test because insurance is/was such a fucking joke!

 

Anyhow, I'm with Serebii - I think this system might end up just being too limiting. No doubt it'll also lead to an increased cost of driving; paying out more for lessons/supervision/time, maybe excuses for insurers to charge more, I don't know how good it'll be in the long run tbh.

 

Then again I also don't care, as I won't be affected! Ha!

[Charlie]

I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

This expression should be permanently removed from the English language.

 

How's your Nokia 3210? Probably not broken, no need to get a smartphone!

 

Dial-up is still fully functional. No need for broadband!

[Ashley]

 

@Ashley - It works fine in other countries. People, believe it or not, do actually respect laws. People without licenses don't go out driving by themself. You can't police against that unless you pull people over and find out.

 

Hmm, but there's a difference between being legally allowed to drive and not, compared to being able to legally drive in certain conditions. As Serebii eluded to, it can be problematic. When do you classify "night driving"? Is it after 9pm? Is it when its dark enough that you need beams? Night in winter is a lot longer than night in summer, so would it be fine to drive at 10pm in the current weather we have but in five months time it wouldn't be?

 

Similarly, "winter driving". Is that based on the equinox? Or just when weather is going to impede on driving, which again could run from Oct-April in this country.

 

Once you get into these grey areas (rather than the black/white "I have passed my test" area), it becomes more problematic. As you said it works in other places though...

 

I don't know or rightly care. Can't see myself learning to drive

[Serebii]

1 in 5 have an accident and 4 in 5 don't. Those 1 in 5 can harm other people than just themselves, remember. They could cause a massive pile-up and multiple deaths. They could injure pedestrians. It's all about increasing the safety of everyone on the road, not just the new driver.

 

@Ashley - It works fine in other countries. People, believe it or not, do actually respect laws. People without licenses don't go out driving by themself. You can't police against that unless you pull people over and find out.

 

I would guess that a lot of non-drivers are against that, and I can sympathise as it might seem tough on them. I remember when I first passed my test (6 months after turning 17) I was told "the learning starts now" and it was so true. I remember shitting myself the first time going out by myself. I was fortunate enough to have driven in poor conditions before during lessons and with my dad but it was still very hard.

It's too restrictive. People have families and jobs that require them to work late. Restricting night time driving and passengers could be detrimental to that.

 

As I said, if they do simulators so you can pass this quicker than waiting, then yes go for it, otherwise no. It's penalising people too much.

[Eenuh]

We already kinda have this in Belgium. I drove for about 1 year before I got my full license.

 

Basically once you finish your theory test and pass, you can take driving lessons. There are different packages you can pick: 20 hour lessons with a licensed school, half of that amount with a school and half with a parent (or whoever you pick), or all of the learning done through a parent (or other person).

 

Basically if you chose to have the 20 hour lessons and you pass these, which I did, you will then get a temporary license, which I think lets you drive on the roads for 1 and a half years to practice. There are limitations, like you can't drive after and before a certain time and you are not allowed passengers etc (unless they have held their license for a certain amount of time or whatever).

 

I thought this was a great way for me to learn to drive before I got my full license. I got in enough experience and I passed my test from the first try.

 

My sister picked another option, she had some lessons and then dad has been teaching her the other times. She gets a temporary license as well, except she is not allowed to drive without a guardian (so someone with a license). Her temporary license lasts for 3 years, to give you more time to practice (since you received less practice with the actual lessons).

 

I might have mixed some of this up, but basically I think it is a great system that lets you practice driving for a longer period of time, rather than just giving you a few lessons and then throwing you into the test. I had already experienced driving through rain, when it is dark, when it is busy etc all through that year. I passed my driving test with only 1 minor mistake. =)

[Daft]

Learning to drive is so expensive, not to mention time consuming. Glad I got it out of the way when I was young.

 

Having said that, I hate cars. The make people lazy, we go to war to fuel them and they fuck up the environment. Genuinely nothing to like about cars, so fuck 'em.

[Rummy]

This expression should be permanently removed from the English language.

 

How's your Nokia 3210? Probably not broken, no need to get a smartphone!

 

Dial-up is still fully functional. No need for broadband!

 

You used this argument before...my nokia broke! Fair point though, it's a bit of a stupid thing to say.

 

I haven't followed the stats bar the constantly rising price of insurance and stories I hear of it.

 

I don't entirely get the whole not being allowed to drive after a certain time if you're supposed to be getting night time experience either, unless it's maybe something like a 10 or 11pm cutoff in the darker days.

 

Eenuh's post doesn't make it sound too bad though.

[Cube]

With those rules, I'd be even less enticed to learn how to drive. The costs seem pretty ridiculous already, and I'm pretty sure driving instructors would use these to make people do more lessons (thus raising the costs even more).

[Dog-amoto]

There have been proposals like this for as long as I've been a driving instructor, which is over 10 years. Just like I always hear the rumour they're raising the age from 17 to 18.

 

It'll never happen.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Learning to drive is so expensive, not to mention time consuming. Glad I got it out of the way when I was young.

 

Having said that, I hate cars. The make people lazy, we go to war to fuel them and they fuck up the environment. Genuinely nothing to like about cars, so fuck 'em.

 

Cars and the whole process of learning to drive is stressful and an annoyance. However, at times, it can be a necessary evil. For example, when I was supply teaching, I had no car and had to make do with public transport. One particular job saw me waking up at 5am and boarding a train at around 5:45, where I then had to switch at Cardiff to take another train, and had to take a 25 minute taxi anyway when I got off the train to get to one school for 8:30. Getting home was the same. It was a nightmare. 4 trains and 2 taxis to get to work and back.

 

Even now, there are no trains and buses that can take me close enough to get to the school without needing a car at some point. Yes, they're a pain, but they're also a huuuuge convenience and can actually relieve stress in some ways. Some of the transport links that exist in this country are absolutely dire. So, either they would have to be monumentally improved, or we have to look at improving cars and looking for alternative fuel sources or how to make them greener.

[Daft]

But imagine if we had taken all the money we poured into infrastructure for cars and used it to improve public transport. Just think about it, most modern cities are designed around cars - LA being a prime example, and it's a pretty terrible city because of it.

 

Not to mention how much more democratic public transport is. Most aspects of 'the car' are vile, from it acting as a status symbol to dictating how our cities are made to effecting public health (and like I said, driving us to war - like you said we can change how cars are fuelled so this will hopefully become a historical issue...but realistically I think we all know it won't for a very long time).

 

I honestly believe the car is at the heart of modernity's evils (The five day working week is even down to Henry Ford - not that this aspect is a good or bad thing, I'm just giving an idea of how ingrained the car is to the creation of modern history...and how it ruined it).

Edited July 17, 2013 by Daft
Spelling

[Agent Gibbs]

In theory they are all fair ideas, but i think that in practice some may fall down, but i suppose the exact details would need working out before soemothing like this is introduced.

 

I started to learn to drive at 17 and due to work and college commitments it wasn't until i was 19 that i passed. I spent a the first year (17/18) having my dad teach me, and we went out 2 nights a week for a year, it was all effectivly night time driving, and i benefitted immensely from this, that said i failed my first test due to a few outdated things my dad taught me, (down gearing on approach to junctions to engine break, stopping at every give way until i was sure) the intructor praised my technical ability to drive, but i needed to drop the abd habbits i picked up from my Dad

 

So i took lessons after that, and went in for my second test, but failed with 1 major, at a roundabout i was travelling straight on and in the correct nearside lane, but ahead of me a taxi pulled well over the give way line, which caused me to move over to the right more, apparently crossing the centre line on the roundabout in this situation was wrong and could have caused an accident, i should have stopped and given way to the taxi who was in the middle of a manouevre......I still heavily contest this as its against my understanding of the highway code. I went in for a test a week later and passed with a single minor (december 04)

 

After passing my test however i learnt to drive, as the "learning" process before the test really is typicall british learning in that you're only taught to pass the test.

First time it snowed i took myself to an empty super market car park that was empty and purposely allowed the car to skin, and learnt how to "control" it, and i advocate any new driver do this because it prepares you somewhat for any situation where you may have a lack of control - so for a years learning in all weather i'd highly advocate this! i know some women who refuse to drive in the snow because they've never driven in it and its is too dangerous, so winter comes and they won't drive, my girlfriend was just as bad and won't drive alone in snow, or wouldn't until i took her to a car park and made her learn how a car reacts when it skids and she's much better now.

 

The night time driving is one i can't see working to well unless its done on times, so its in relation to time of day thus how tired a drive will be rather than visibility they will face, as seasonal changes and weather condition will otherwise effect this, i mean some winters due to cloud cover or fog are dark so would new drivers be banned? and if so how will they learn to drive in these conditions? If its time limited in the summer it will seem harsh they might have to be home by a certain time and its light, but in winter they weill experience "night" driving before the curfuw so it balances out.

 

I would argue any time limits will need grace periods and police to have leniency as i saw an article about a teen who crashed his car and killed others when he was racing home to beat his curfew imposed by his insurance cover, which prevented night driving beyond 11pm, but didn't penalise the insurance until the speed limit was exceeded by more than 50%, so he was racing to avoid that...

 

As for passengers? i agree, the biggest distraction i ever faced while driving when i was younger was my passengers acting like fools, i had to pull over once when one dropped a cigarette in my car whilst passing it to the front passenger for "twos"

[Fierce_LiNk]

But imagine if we had taken all the money we poured into infrastructure for cars and used it to improve public transport. Just thing about it, most modern cities are designed around cars - LA being a prime example, and it's a pretty terrible city because of it.

 

Not to mention how much more democratic public transport is. Most aspects of 'the car' are vile, from it acting as a status symbol to dictating how our cities are made to effecting public health.

 

I honestly believe the car is at the heart of modernity's evils (The five day working week is even down to Henry Ford).

 

I would have loved to have seen this happen. It would have possibly made things cheaper for the average citizen in the long-run, as you wouldn't have to worry about paying for the car, car tax, insurance premiums, speeding fines, parking tickets, parking charges, petrol, etc. Ine's home city of Hasselt is pretty cool as they have "free buses" in the sense that your taxes pay for it. So, you can just hop on a bus and go into town. I do believe they're stopping that, though. A shame.

 

It's going to take a lot of money to get to that stage, mind. We don't have enough cycle lanes in this country and this makes driving a bit nervy at times for me. In the South, there's so many small, tight country roads that can barely fit two cars alongside each other. Throwing cyclists into the mix just adds chaos. We need more cycle lanes for a start. The trains are another matter...the trains in Wales are a shambles and I don't seriously believe that they've been refurbished since the 80s.

[Charlie]

But imagine if we had taken all the money we poured into infrastructure for cars and used it to improve public transport.

 

This would be an idea I could get behind if it wasn't for the SNP.

 

Cancelled the Glasgow Airport railway link. Sinking hundreds of millions into the Edinburgh Tram project that is so far over budget and behind schedule its unbelieveable.

 

I don't trust them to be able to do it properly.

[Agent Gibbs]

with regards to the transport infastructure sub dscussion

 

I'd love that really, if public transport was better accross the entire country then it would be loads better, London has an amazing public transport system because it has to, if every city had that then the roads would be a lot better and safer for all

 

with regards to cyclists i'd love us to widen all footways and take on an approach more commonly seen in europe where the footway is segregated into cycle lanes and pedestrian lanes, or where there are separate carriageways for cyclists that separate them from traffic, its the better and surely prefered option of all! cyclists would be safe, motorists wouldn't have the annoyance they say most cyclists are, and accidents would drop off.

 

but instead were going to privatise roads and improve them.... whilst train and bus fairs sky rocket to the point that theey are much more expensive than using a car

[Rummy]

I'm on both sides of the car debate, though it's somewhat off topic. Personally, I would love a much better, cheaper, efficient, and generally happy/good public transport system. However cars would have evolved from horse and carriage, no? We were probably doomed before cars even came to exist.

 

Yet I also concede to them as a neccessary evil as Flink says. If I did have a car/license I wouldn't have gotten my job, possibly if I was still 'first year' driver under the new regulations I wouldn't have been able to either, or might have paid through the nose for business use if I had. The ease and speed of a car in the road system is essentially invaluable, when I've got to be popping all over to see various people I can't think of a viable solution otherwise. However, IF we had a public transport only system I'd not only have no other choice, but it'd surely be so much more awesome that it would work fast and well. Pipe dreams though.

[bob]

I hope the first car i buy to be an electric one. We'll see how that turns out though.

 

I personally think adding a few extra boundaries to the learning to drive experience is a necessity.

 

If you sat someone down and said;

 

Right, well, this here is a 1 ton mass of metal and rubber which is going to be travelling at over 30 metres per second in that general direction. We want you to sit in it while it hurtles down the road and make sure it doesn't hit anybody. Off you gooooooooo!

 

I would say what the hell, don't you need some sort of lengthy qualification to do that?! Shouldn't i pass a CRB style check up first?!

 

The sort of people we allow to get in a car and drive away is ridiculous.

 

Only RAF pilots should be allowed to drive cars, clearly.

[Charlie]

Right, well, this here is a 1 ton mass of metal and rubber which is going to be travelling at over 30 metres per second in that general direction. We want you to sit in it while it hurtles down the road and make sure it doesn't hit anybody. Off you gooooooooo!

 

And the only thing protecting you from cars coming at similar speeds in the opposite direction is a painted white line.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Learning to drive is so expensive, not to mention time consuming. Glad I got it out of the way when I was young.

 

Having said that, I hate cars. The make people lazy, we go to war to fuel them and they fuck up the environment. Genuinely nothing to like about cars, so fuck 'em.

 

It depends on where you live, really. But in most cases I agree, cars are unecessary in day to day life.

 

But there's alot to like about the freedom they provide. Not a bad product, we just use it wrong.

 

Cars make it so you can go anywhere, anytime. Roadtrips are too fucking awesome. My dream is to eventually own a caravan and land a job that allows me to work on the road. But I guess you guys wouldn't relate much to that. What with the UK being an island and the whole driving on the other side thing... Must certainly hamper such prospects.

[Jon]

It depends on where you live, really. But in most cases I agree, cars are unecessary in day to day life.

 

But there's alot to like about the freedom they provide. Not a bad product, we just use it wrong.

 

Cars make it so you can go anywhere, anytime. Roadtrips are too fucking awesome. My dream is to eventually own a caravan and land a job that allows me to work on the road. But I guess you guys wouldn't relate much to that. What with the UK being an island and the whole driving on the other side thing... Must certainly hamper such prospects.

 

Why would driving on the other side of the road hamper my ability to tour the country with a Caravan?