We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

How ridiuclous can you get


Kevscar1

Likes # 0

Evidently they are considering passing a law to ban teenagers carrying passengers who are not part of their family. How many thousands are still driving around texting and talking on their mobile this would be yet another unenforcable law

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

The idea of police trying to enforce by stopping any/all cars with passengers for checks would be ludicrous.

But, after some accidents where it was then found that the law had been broken, and, presumably, the insurance company would baulk at paying out, the ensuing publicity would start to kick in and people begin to realise the consequences.

So , having such a law would, eventually, probably have an effect.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

It's about as stupid as the law which says learner drivers must display L plates and be supervised.

Next time you're out count the number of cars wit L plates and only the driver inside.

Then the next two hundred times you're out count how many of these cars are stopped by the police for a licence check.

It's a simple moneyspinner. It won't make the roads any safer, but will allow for bigger fines in the event of an accident and allow insurance companies to opt out of paying up because the driver is, if carrying prohibited passengers, in effect unlicensed, and therefore uninsured.

Like this post
carver

Likes # 0

It's getting rather funny this because who would be classed as a "family" member, brother, sister, mother/father, Aunt/ uncle, nephew / niece/1-2-3rd cousin.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

fourm member

"I happen to think that there is merit in seeing if more young people can be kept alive. But it is beginning to look as if I am alone."

Sorry, but I reckon that's the most pompous statement you have issued for some time. Suggesting nobody else but you cares about deaths of young folk is plainly ridiculous - has someone struck a nerve, perhaps?

Lest you continue to propagate this bile, I might remind you that I agreed with your original post about this law - so it is patently wrong to use the term *"...I am alone" * because I must care as well!!

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

morddwyd *" It's about as stupid as the law which says learner drivers must display L plates and be supervised"*

You say it's a stupid law to make 'learner' drivers display L plates? Do you mean anyone should be able to get in and drive a car without any indication that they have not passed a proficiency test?

As for the point about one person in a car that has L plates - it may be technically wrong for an experienced driver to still have L plates on display - but hardly against the law. How many driving school cars are in that situation when 'between customers' with only the owner in the vehicle?

It wouldn't be a 'moneyspinner' - in the same way one can hardly say the seatbelt law is. Or do you really believe that the only purpose of that law was to gather fines, rather than save lives?

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

Tangalooma_2006: "Most teenagers have their own car these days" - Is that a fact? If so how did they get it? Bought by parents and maintained by them? If they bought it themselves out of their own money then they might take more care.

Something has to be done to reduce the number of young driver deaths. I am not sure that this is the right policy but showing off doesn't help nor does being egged on by possibly under the influence passengers.

Like this post
Chegs ®™

Likes # 0

I'm an avid "petrolhead" & as such,watch lots of programs on TV about cars.They were talking about insurance quotes recently and how fitting of "tracker" type devices that monitored the driving style and relayed it to a website(for instance)could reduce the premium massively.They also visited a "cruise" which had a large number of younger drivers with modified cars and asked whether any of them would consider installing such devices in their cars.There was an almost 100% no response as they didn't wish to be "spied" on as they felt that with the large quantity of CCTV cameras around that was sufficient spying.The question was then asked "how much was their present premium?" and the majority were paying in excess of £3000! Even when the resulting drop in premium to under £900 was pointed out,they still insisted they'd never have such a device installed.I'm just under 50 & baulked at a quote for £1500(I needed business type cover)but had no option but to pay,so how these younger drivers are able to cough out twice that escapes me.I've always maintained that if my premium is more than the value of my car,I'll do without the car(though this is getting harder & harder to achieve as premiums can be ridiculous and my maximum spend on a car has been just £500 for many years)As I've also been the victim of nine crashes now,and the other driver has been under 25 in every instance I wish something could be done to try and get the younger driver to concentrate more before the next crash kills me.As for the police pulling over every car with an apparently younger driver carrying passengers being impracticable,as I once got stopped six times in as many hours for a "routine check" its not that impracticable to achieve,especially with the police now being able to check insurance/MOT/Tax etc through ANPR technology.

Like this post
WhiteTruckMan

Likes # 0

Fourm member

Earlier you wrote "The young person may pay for the car but the only way they can insure it is for dad to say it is his second car and the youngster is only an irregular user"

I'd just like to point out to everyone that this practice is referred to by insurers as 'fronting' and is illegal.

On a wider note, If anyone is looking for alternative suggestions, well how about a power limitation? It's something that is already practiced with motorcycles. In fact it would probably be quite easy to achieve with modern ECU's. I also believe it was suggestred by one manufacturer (ford? cant' remember) that it might be possible to have a restricted power output depending on which ignition key was used.

Now I know full well that such a scheme would take quite a number of years to take full effect, but you have to start somewhere.

Another possibility might be limiting driving hours to (say) 7am to 7pm.

Neither idea is perfect, and both have their flaws. I can almost hear the 'but what if..' already.

I do think they might go some way to helping though.

WTM

Like this post
Fruit Bat /\0/\

Likes # 0

How would you reduce this death toll?

No one gets a driving license until they are twenty five. =

Number of cars on road reduced therefore less CO2 emmissions + Death toll reduced.

might also mean we get a better public transport system as more people would be using it.

:0)

Like this post
WhiteTruckMan

Likes # 0

might also mean we get a better public transport system as more people would be using it

I wouldn't bet on that, if I were you!

WTM

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

LED vs Halogen: Why now could be the right time to invest in LED bulbs

IDG UK Sites

Christmas' best ads: See great festive spots studios have created to promote themselves and clients

IDG UK Sites

Why Apple shouldn't be blamed for exploitation in China and Indonesia