new drivers stuff rejected..

[5lab]

Tough plans for learners rejected
21 April 2004

The Government has rejected plans to radically change the way motorists learn to drive.

Proposals outlined by the Department for Transport included probationary licences to limit new drivers to cars of certain power outputs, motorway training for learner drivers and minimum-length learning periods.

However, the DfT has concluded that such measures wouldn’t improve safety or the quality of driver training. Instead, it will develop a new logbook that learner drivers must keep to chart their progress.

The DfT also rejected tighter speed and drink-drive restrictions for new drivers, as well as bans on taking passengers or driving at night.

It is keen to develop the AA’s idea for a Probationary Code to stand alongside the Highway Code. The new code would contain specific guidelines for new drivers, and could be used to help prosecute them if they failed to follow its advice and were involved in an accident.

The DfT has yet to confirm when it will introduce the new logbook or how the probationary code could shape up, however.

some of them were good ideas imo, but not banning driving at night or taking passengers.. those 2 were just fecking dumb

[IainB]

some of them were good ideas imo, but not banning driving at night or taking passengers.. those 2 were just fecking dumb

So - going by what they wanted, when my missus passes her test she wouldnt be ablt to take our son out in the car........
What a brilliant idea and these people are paid to 'think'......

[Shad]

Safety sells

Good thing the Government rejected the plans.

[Stubzz]

Whats the point of stopping passengers for new drivers? The driving test is meant to access whether you're good enough to be let on the road on your own, when in reality you're not. That would stop an experienced driver from giving you any tips, making you a worse driver IMO. It makes no sense

[Butuz]

Pardom me if i am being stupid - but shouldnt the driving test prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is capable of driving a car safely?

If it doesnt acchieve that now - it should be changed until it does!

What good would a pilot test be if you were to pass, become a certified pilot capable of flying a jumbo, only to then be told that you cant take any passangers for 6 months because your new and we don't trust you. Either your capable of flying a plane or your not, there is no middle ground.

It should be the same for cars, either you can drive or you can not, the test should take into account things like the drivers attitude etc, and i think that the instructor should somehow become involved in whether they should pass or not based on what they have seen of the drivers behaviour over the x months of them learning.

Current driving test is a farce IMHO.

Butuz

[Tumble]

the test is just there to prove you can pass a test.... the actual sensible driving you have to learn yourself.... wtf is the sense in driving along 1m away from the kerb... in all situations... left hand cornner par example... go in wide, on your side of the road.. better view round the corner.. yet you'd fail your test for doing that, something which enhances your awareness/safety.

[TomWilko]

Pardom me if i am being stupid - but shouldnt the driving test prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is capable of driving a car safely?

If it doesnt acchieve that now - it should be changed until it does!

What good would a pilot test be if you were to pass, become a certified pilot capable of flying a jumbo, only to then be told that you cant take any passangers for 6 months because your new and we don't trust you. Either your capable of flying a plane or your not, there is no middle ground.

It should be the same for cars, either you can drive or you can not, the test should take into account things like the drivers attitude etc, and i think that the instructor should somehow become involved in whether they should pass or not based on what they have seen of the drivers behaviour over the x months of them learning.

Current driving test is a farce IMHO.

Butuz

Agreed

The idea of doing a 'minimum' length of working could be interesting! How would they regulate something like that? Surely you are gonna get some dodgy Instructors...

[Butuz]

the test is just there to prove you can pass a test.... the actual sensible driving you have to learn yourself....

Sorry - GCSE's are there to prove you can pass a test, driving test is there (or at least, should be) to prove you can drive.

Butuz

[5lab]

i think the idea of stopping passengers/night stuff is to avoid the rudeboy syndrome, but its simply impractical. the engine limit is a good idea, but also impractical (alot of young drivers drive their parents car because they cant afford their own). motorway lessons would be a good idea, but everything comes with practice..

perhaps a re-test after 6 months so you can check progress??

i did pass plus with my driving instructor who encouraged speeding on the mway and driving 1handed.. oh well

[Stoo]

Motorway lessons are handy only if you actually live anywhere near one.. nearest one for me is at least 2 or more hours drive away just to get to it..

The thing about passengers and engine sizes has just been swiped directly from the motorbike test and as such is fairly pointless, having a passenger or two in a car doesn't really alter the car's handling like it does with a bike.
The thing about more powerful engines is a little bit off as well, quite often larger engined cars are a hell of a lot easier to drive than small engined cars, coupled with the fact that insurance costs rules out performance cars more often than not anyway.

In fact I'd like to see people learn in cars with bigger engines, certainly after they'd got the basics nailed anyway, that way they'd at least have some experience of how a more powerful car handles with a qualified instructor on hand.

Oh, and the driving test is only there to prove that you can operate a car to a certain level, passing the test is only the tip of the iceberg, the vast majority of learning to "drive" is done after the test on your own (but most people already know that).

I want to do the pass plus course, but I've got to save up the cash first as the price is pretty high here because of the time and distance involved to actually get to the motorway

I was thinking about the advanced drivers course, but I think I've had enough of tests for one lifetime

[TeePee]

Actually changing the driving test to make it more like a pilots licence would be ideal. First you have to learn to fly a little plane, you take a test, and then you can fly little planes. Then if you want you can do training and take another test to fly in poor weather, and then for multi-engine planes, and then for a commercial licence, etc.

Of course, you could say we have something similar with the different types of vehicles and different tests. The difference is that no-one flys without supervision in a plane which is outside of their experience.

The standard driving test is not enough, and I'd favour a system in which drivers had two years after their test date in order to pass a compulsory advanced training course. Not just things like motorway driving, but anticipation of other road users, making due progress etc.

[Zak33]

First thin I feel people should be shown is MOTOR BIKES ARE INVISIBLE to the untrained eye.

Totally invisible......look left, right, left...pull out..kill biker

All first lessons SHOULD have bike awareness DRUMMED into them.

Note: am not a biker myself, but the poor buggers really do have it hard out there with noobs

[Tumble]

They do that with HGVs already.. have done for years.. You learn on a fixed chassis, THEN upgrade to articulated/PSV. It's the way it should happen with cars.

Or how about a manufacturer producing a small, low powered single seater... like that dinky Daihatsu pickup... and you rent one off the government, per year (instead of paying for insurance?) until you've passed your test on using the road.... separate the 2 parts. Cos the driving test as is, like Stoo said, to see if you can operate the car efficiently/the way they want you to, and not enough emphasis is put on SENSIBLE use of the road system. Make it something like the motorbike test.. you pass CBT, ride around on moped/ single seater rented from govt. and then do a test after maybe max 2 years to drive a proper car, once you've learnt how to do the road bit...


just a bit of a brainstorm there, my 2p....

[sdp]

First thin I feel people should be shown is MOTOR BIKES ARE INVISIBLE to the untrained eye.

My instructor always made a point of telling me to watch out for bikers at junctions. It's been easier to spot them over the last few years because most of them havwe their headlights on all the time. Maybe they've always done that though, and I only noticed when I started driving..

[Fox]

Limiting to certain power outputs would have been a tad silly. Can do a lot more damage in a 90bhp Saxo VTR than you can in a 115bhp 1.8 Vectra LS for example..

[nichomach]

Make it something like the motorbike test.. you pass CBT, ride around on moped/ single seater rented from govt. and then do a test after maybe max 2 years to drive a proper car, once you've learnt how to do the road bit... just a bit of a brainstorm there, my 2p....

Except the only reason I learned to drive was because I needed to for work, and this would make it absolutely pointless. I agree with the PassPlus system because there's actually an incentive of sorts in terms of lower insurance to do it, but what you're talking about is essentially making someone pay through the nose for lessons, pay for a test and then not actually be able to use the toy car that you'd deign to let them have for any practical purpose for 2 years. I don't think it'd make any difference at all to road safety, given some of the appalling driving I've seen from allegedly experienced drivers.