A year of driving lessons

[JamesB]

So the Association of British Insurers wants all learners to take lessons for at least a year.

Now this seems like a reasonably sensible idea on the face of it but I can't help thinking it is flawed. For a start, it would annoy the hell out of me if I was a learner and will surely price more people out of 'the market'. It also strikes me that some of the worst drivers I know took over a year to pass their test anyway.

I'm sure the idea behind this is to give teenage boy racers time to develop experience but a one size fits all approach doesn't really do it for me. Hours on the road might be more appropriate and my opinion changes on a daily basis about limiting the performance of cars of new drivers. Ultimately though there is only so much you can do before you start restricting people's basic freedom. At some stage, people have to be new drivers and on average they will be more dangerous to themselves and others than those with more experience, especially certain demographic groups. I'm not sure any amount of tinkering will change that.

[patently]

My first thought was that this would be pointless - just book a lesson on your 17th birthday to set the start of your year, then the only effect is an age limit of 18 for taking the test.

However, I did hear reference to a log book, so that suggests that there is an element of driving time and experience involved. That sounds more promising, to be honest.

The one year thing sounds artificial and silly, though. If the log book shows total experience including experience in different weathers (etc) then that sounds good enough.

Looking at the statistics, though, something needs to be done.

[djcool]

I passed mine with about 10 2-hour lessons taken twice weekly = 5 weeks.

I did have a years experience on mopeds though, which helped.

I think a year is a bit OTT.

[collease]

I think a year of experience could be a good thing but not the right thing. They would have to make driving lessons cheaper or people would be unable to afford to take them for that length of time. Perhaps if they made it an hours based program so you did a certain amount of tuition driving and a certain amount of driving after your test befor you got your full licence.

[bullett]

I actually like the idea of logging hours for experience a minimum being required to qualify for an exam and more required before a 2nd or 3rd exam can be taken. A motorcycle test could reduce this requirement. A year is maybe a bit long though 6 months maybe, 25hours?

In my group people who passed too quickly tended to be over confident and reckles and those who took much beyond a year seem slow and hesitent.

[v15ben]

I personally think it is a ploy to lace the palms of driving instructors and driving schools with more learner's silver coins. Most people I know who have recently passed their test (in the past 3 years or so) have taken less than a year to do so. That includes plenty of people who have failed multiple times!

I took 7 months to pass and that was mainly due to a 2 month waiting list for driving test slots at the local test centre.

I can't help but think that the extra cost will put young people and new drivers off getting into a car and learning.

Another point I would raise is how is your "Year of Driving Experience" really measured, do you need a minimum number of lessons before taking your test? Surely one person could take 100 lessons in a year whilst someone else may take 10 and still pass the same test.

Personally I would make the test itself more challenging and include motorway driving, night driving and a skid pan test rather than simply plodding around a few city streets and reversing round a corner in a housing estate for an hour. That would IMO make more difference to the standard of driving than simply putting learners through a year of city based driving.

However the young drivers who cause accidents by speeding excessively, showing off to mates, racing, overtaking on blind bends etc etc will still drive like lunatics. They can drive sensibly as they have shown to pass a driving test in the first place, but they choose not to. No amount of probationary 1 year driving lessons will change that fact!

[Bounce]

What they should do is make it cheaper to insure a Young learner on there parents car so they can get time on the roads, as it is most can't afford anything other than the lessons which is only an hour or two per week on the road.

[EssFour]

My first thoughts are cha ching and where can I get application forms to become a driving instructor.

[stevie_d]

v15ben> exactly, you drive your test to pass, I don't know of any driver who still drives like they did when they were learning (mainly because it's an idiotic way to drive imho). Good idea about the skidpan

As we were saying in the advanced driver and going for an overtkae threads, there are so many things that learners aren't taught. I was lucky as my instructor was very good and did teach me how to overtake, but the vast majority don't.

I'd personally force retests every ten years and this would include a brief theory test. If the government want to cut road deaths then the only way is to increase the ability of the drivers, either by culling the poor ones (I believe at least 10% of drivers are unfit for the road) or by offering better tuition.

[shao_khan]

I have always thought the test should have 3 parts.

Part 1 - Theory - no ability to drive until you understand the theory and prove it.

Part 2 - Leaning to drive 'off road' - purpose built venue or old airfeilds - but you must prove competence before you are allowed onto the road - I see so many learners cearly scarred out of their wits on the road and as a result pretty dangerous.

Part 3 - Lessons and extended test. When I had to retake my driving test I had to have an extended test - includes all the normal manouvers, but also 45 mins of driving on A and B class roads and town to show you can actually drive and control a car in normal day to day use.

Also as said above - the government must do something about poor drivers - so retests for drivers clearly seen to be careless by Police, every 15 yrs mandatory and forget speed cameras - get careless driving cameras

[NewNiceMrMe]

I think the idea is ridiculous.

Instead they should tighten the enforcement around convictions against young or inexperienced drivers.

The current 6 points and you're out rule just isn't enough. I think it should be changed to include driver error claims and accidents. So, if someone is known to have caused X accidents in a period of time, they incur a mark on their license. If that doesn't teach them and they cause another accident - take the license off them - all within a 3 year period of having passed their test.

Furthermore, me being authoritarian in the highest order, I'd like to see disturbance of the peace added for those morons that have their car stero's blasting out after 7pm on an evening.

However, my major point is rather different. I want the police to have the power to pull cars over that are very obviously modified in some way (not just young drivers) and to be able to do on-the-spot insurance checks to see if the modifications are declared or not. If they're not, ban them. 3 years. No argument.

Harsh? Well if they want to change things I think you have to be.

[shao_khan]

Nice ideas - but this is not a country where we impose laws that deter bad behaviour. Shame.

[Snail]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, me being authoritarian in the highest order, I'd like to see disturbance of the peace added for those morons that have their car stero's blasting out after 7pm on an evening.

[/ QUOTE ]

God your old MrMe!!!!!

To be honest, a little noise polution is EXTREMELY insignificant compared to the amount of dangerous/inconsiderate driving on the road these days.

We were all young once, and if a little noise is the worst crime a youngster does on the road, then we live in a fantastic society!!!

Heck, have you heard the engine on a 1.0L Nova? no wonder loud stereo's are required!

[NewNiceMrMe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, me being authoritarian in the highest order, I'd like to see disturbance of the peace added for those morons that have their car stero's blasting out after 7pm on an evening.

[/ QUOTE ]

God your old MrMe!!!!!

To be honest, a little noise polution is EXTREMELY insignificant compared to the amount of dangerous/inconsiderate driving on the road these days.

We were all young once, and if a little noise is the worst crime a youngster does on the road, then we live in a fantastic society!!!

Heck, have you heard the engine on a 1.0L Nova? no wonder loud stereo's are required!

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it sounds like that, but I think personal views on this differ if you have to put up with it much.

See, we're about 150 yards from a road that is off a major road. On an evening, the road is used as a short cut by boy racers. They don't directly pass our house, and indeed you struggle to see the cars. So, it's all the more infuriating that from inside the house, with all the doors and windows closed, with double glazing throughout, with two houses and trees between us and the road....that I can still hear the dull thud as they go past!!!

It's easy to say it's not a crime, but if it was the house over the road doing it every 10-15 minutes in short blasts, people would soon report them to the police, wouldn't they?

Ok, maybe its not as often as that, but I'll hear it at least once every night for a short burst. On one occasion a car actually stopped on the road and the dull thud was so loud it actually woke our 3 year old daughter up. The following day I spoke to 2 neighbours, both of whom it transpired had come outside the previous evening to see what the noise was!

I'm not talking about those that play music loud. I'm talking about those that play music at an almost deafening level, seem to have to do so with their windows open and do nothing but cruise around residential areas subjecting the rest of the world to their dross.

[NewNiceMrMe]

Lets see what TSN thinks.

Poll HERE.

[v15ben]

[ QUOTE ]

The current 6 points and you're out rule just isn't enough. I think it should be changed to include driver error claims and accidents. So, if someone is known to have caused X accidents in a period of time, they incur a mark on their license. If that doesn't teach them and they cause another accident - take the license off them - all within a 3 year period of having passed their test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I'd have that rule for all drivers regardless of age/experience. A couple living near us must have had 4 courtesy cars between them in the past year while their cars have been in for repairs to accident damage they have caused!

I know of plenty of drivers with allegedly plenty of experience who couldn't arrange a piss up in a brewery, but would easily account for several accidents each year!