P.K. Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 So which is worse? Derby and Joan on their once a month outing to buy a potato at 5mph. Mr Sqeak Pencil in his Porche warp rocket with 7 go faster stripes on his way to his dynamic financial company. Lucinda Farquar Comeover taking the chosen one to school in her 4x4 Rhino crusher turbo delux arse crusher with anti elephant bars. Or Kevin and every one of his mates he can cram into his second hand cruise missile with R plates. If we ignore the obvious generalities for a moment obviously the worst is the grouping that causes the most fatal accidents. Now let me see. Derby and Joan - nope, too slow. Penis Subbo - nope, stupidly well-engineered. Mrs Retroussé, nope, stupidly over-engineered. Spotty Kevin Chav pumping testosterone from every pore as he charges along in his Corsa with a soup can for an exhaust desperately trying to impress Miss Teenage Preggo next to him and his equally spotty mates in the back. Hmmm.... I can't help thinking you're concentrating on the wrong end of the age spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Now let me see. Derby and Joan - nope, too slow. Penis Subbo - nope, stupidly well-engineered. Mrs Retroussé, nope, stupidly over-engineered. Spotty Kevin Chav pumping testosterone from every pore as he charges along in his Corsa with a soup can for an exhaust desperately trying to impress Miss Teenage Preggo next to him and his equally spotty mates in the back. But Spotty Kevin was only amongst the scores of drivers trying to overtake Darby and Joan at 5mph on an open road, Porsche driver made it past because he has pretty good judgement and loads of horsepower to get him out of trouble, Missus 4x4 had plenty of forward visibility and the oncoming traffic could see her coming down the wrong side of the road and so they slowed down, but poor Kevin with his overloaded, underpowered Saxo was inexperienced, took a risk on the wrong bit of road, and failed... Still, at least Darby and Joan made it home without a scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nobody's making you overtake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Oh yes they are Sarah - ALL the voices in my head are saying I've got too cautious in my dotage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Oh yes they are Sarah - ALL the voices in my head are saying I've got too cautious in my dotage... that's the trouble when you approach middle age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 What's with the "approach" middle age bit - eh Stu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltire Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I'd go with that - the photo licence lasts 10 years, so some sort of review before getting your new one could work quite well. Driving school in lieu of penalty points isn't a bad idea either - I think they have this in the UK? Here in the UK your driving licence doesn't actually expire after 10 years, just the photograph. So all you have to do is complete a form, send your licence and a new passport photo and it comes back with no other checks into your driving. (Except if you are over 70 where you have to be assessed medically every couple of years I think). To be honest I don't think retesting every 10 years is at all practical. It would be better if rather than the current trend of sticking speed cameras all over the place, we had more traffic police and stiffer penalties for the more minor offences and ignorance, cluelessness and selfishness on the road. We've all been stuck behind 80 year olds in their cars and it is annoying. However I have worked with truck drivers still in their 70s who are better drivers than most. Maybe the focus should be on individuals ability to drive rather than their age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nope - it's not really about age - it's about being tested at (in my case 17) and then having no further mandatory testing or training for life. At 17 my first car was a fourth-hand Austin A35 with about 40bhp that was flat out (and scary) at 60mph. My current sports car has almost 10 times that power - yet there's been absolutely no legal requirement to undergo any further training or assessment of my ability to control that oomph. When I got my PPL in 1985 (trying not to be a 'when I' with this, but there are important parallels) I'd had 70 hours instruction, studied for and taken 4 pretty heavy theory exams and took a practical flight test where I had to demonstrate to an examiner that I could handle any potentially survivable emergency. Even after all that, the basic licence only allowed me to fly in good weather and clear of cloud. I had to do lots more study and training to get an IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) rating, and even that only allows me to fly in cloud OUTSIDE busy/controlled airspace. When I wanted to fly at night - guess what? More training and a test. Nowadays I have to take a thorough annual CAA medical, and renew/revalidate my licence and ratings every other year with an examiner. Yet I could buy a Bugatti Veyron (if only!) and drive it on a licence I gained in 1971 in a Triumph Herald! I've seen R plates on some pretty powerful cars lately - there are plenty of wealthy parents here who can buy their children new cars - or let them drive their own. If you pass your test in a Micra, you should be limited to that performance 'index' until you've added further 'ratings' to your licence. People might see all this additional training and examining as expensive and unnecessarily beaurocratic - but I believe driving is a skill (at best an art) that needs to be honed over a lifetime, and the privilege of a licence withdrawn if you've not maintained an acceptable standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nope - it's not really about age - it's about being tested at (in my case 17) and then having no further mandatory testing or training for life. At 17 my first car was a fourth-hand Austin A35 with about 40bhp that was flat out (and scary) at 60mph. My current sports car has almost 10 times that power - yet there's been absolutely no legal requirement to undergo any further training or assessment of my ability to control that oomph. ...... I've seen R plates on some pretty powerful cars lately - there are plenty of wealthy parents here who can buy their children new cars - or let them drive their own. If you pass your test in a Micra, you should be limited to that performance 'index' until you've added further 'ratings' to your licence. True - used to be that you could pass your driving test in a mini (mine took about 20 minutes in 1978) and get straight into a 7.5T truck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 If you pass your test in a Micra, you should be limited to that performance 'index' until you've added further 'ratings' to your licence. The insurance premium system is presumed to take care of this by massively penalising young drivers for driving anything other than a small car. I would suggest that the police start pulling any high powered cars they see on R plates as the chances are that they are not insured. I saw a Scoobie on R plates last week - for an 18-21 year old on R plates the premium must be around the 5k mark on something like that even if its in the parents name. As its usually some baseball hat wearing chav behind the wheel I would say its pretty unlikely they've coughed up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nobody's making you overtake. Sure, but it's probably quite a bit of peer pressure when you're a young lad, seeing a number of other cars ahead of you overtake the 'oldsmobile' and now it's just you standing in the way of all the other traffic wanting to pass. Particularly if you have your mates in the car too, watching your every move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltire Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 If you pass your test in a Micra, you should be limited to that performance 'index' until you've added further 'ratings' to your licence. At 17 I couldn't afford a car and used my dads on occasion. A very humble Vauxhall Cavalier, but if I had been limited to say a 1litre or similar I probably wouldn't have had any driving experience in the first year after passing my test, because I couldn't afford my own motor. And my dad wouldn't have changed to a small car especially for me, because he still had to carry the family about! Maybe a concession would be if a young driver only had access to the family car after passing their test they could still drive it if a qualified driver sat beside them. I know it doesn't give total freedom after passing the driving test, but could still give them road experience until they could buy a small car of their own. I do agree however that a Subaru on R plates is a bit extreme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 If you pass your test in a Micra, you should be limited to that performance 'index' until you've added further 'ratings' to your licence. You're using flawed logic. The driving test has absolutely nothing to do with handling the power of the vehicle you're driving. It's about tootling along at 28mph, 38mph briefly. How would that be different if sat the test in a Ferrari? There probably is a case for, e.g. restricting the use of high powered vehicles for the use of those over 25, or been driving for 5+years; but it shouldn't be based on the car you sat your test in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Also about the suburu, is it his fault he can drive a nice car? did he swear or ram you off the road? no! leave him be! (It's called company/mechanics insurance) The point I'm making is that most of them can't afford the insurance. Loads of them drive cars insured in their parents name when they are not even on the policy because its too expensive to put them on, or are on a company policy when they're not a company employee. I'd pull them all. Its great and cheap until you have an accident and kill or injure someone and find the insurance company won't pay out. Fine if its only collateral damage, not fine if the guy you hit is a paraplegic and has to spend years sueing you to get compo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 Coming from a 17yr old (me) - I recently collided with a old man driving which was partly mine and his fault, i was doing the general traffic speed (36 in a 30 zone you know you do it too!) You're a disgrace to your age group At your age you should be doing at least 50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.