Young Drivers Crash Rate Worsens

[hawk20]

Can I recommend the best drive of my entire life? The very South-west of France, south of Perpignan is a beautiful fishing port called Collioure where Matisse lived. picturesque and interesting. Drive from there along the coast road to Cadaques in Spain and then have lunch at the restaurant on the seafront overlooking the Med, for almost nothing including wine. The road is the most hairpins ever, with the sheerest drop over the edge to the mediterranean sea, and the most wonderful views for mile after mile. Great driving, great scenery and great grub when you finish. What could be finer?

 

[JEZ.S320L]

Thanks for the advice, I'm aware of that particular "gotcha" when it comes to riding in Spain and we're going in early September. We're keeping away from the Med too! FWIW, the itinerary (starting and ending at Bilbao) is the Paradors at Segovia / Plasencia / Cuenca / Alcaniz / Olite. My wife and I have previously stayed at Segovia, Cuenca and Olite; the other two are new to us. Hopefully we'll time it right for the Fiesta in Olite like we managed to 3 years ago.

BTW, which bit of Espana are you headed for? (just being nosey)

Safe riding. We are off to live at a golf resort near Roldan (Murcia).

 

[st13phil]

Can I recommend the best drive of my entire life?

Thanks for the tip. Just looked at the road on ViaMichelin and it looks to be a beauty! It's a bit far from where we're staying for this trip, but it will be filed away in my "list of roads to ride" for future reference.

 

[philharve]

Obsession with speed

Given the obsession of television so-called motoring programmes with speed and performance generally -and the motoring mags as well - is it any wonder that young men want to try driving fast.

Yes, I totally agree! I have recently been watching the many re-runs of 'Top Gear' on Freeview, one programme after the other, and there is definitely a strong message coming across that driving fast and burning rubber is cool. With Clarkson's insatiate appetite for driving the World's fastest cars at insane speeds, on an aerodrome or on the Continent, the same 'speed is glamourous' message comes across very strongly. I can well imagine that many young drivers, mostly hot-headed young males, like to emulate their heroes, Clarkson and the The Stig, but they do it on the UK road network and risk their lives as well as ours. Hammond's 300mph crash put a brake on proceedings, but only for a few months. Drink reduces inhibitions and only exacerbates the problem. Urgent action is required but I have yet to see a formulae that I believe will work. I expect the death toll will continue rise until they realize that inappropriate use of speed, especially if under the influence of drink or drugs, will kill.

REGARDS

Phil

 

[JEZ.S320L]

Yes, I totally agree! I have recently been watching the many re-runs of 'Top Gear' on Freeview, one programme after the other, and there is definitely a strong message coming across that driving fast and burning rubber is cool. With Clarkson's insatiate appetite for driving the World's fastest cars at insane speeds, on an aerodrome or on the Continent, the same 'speed is glamourous' message comes across very strongly. I can well imagine that many young drivers, mostly hot-headed young males, like to emulate their heroes, Clarkson and the The Stig, but they do it on the UK road network and risk their lives as well as ours. Hammond's 300mph crash put a brake on proceedings, but only for a few months. Drink reduces inhibitions and only exacerbates the problem. Urgent action is required but I have yet to see a formulae that I believe will work. I expect the death toll will continue rise until they realize that inappropriate use of speed, especially if under the influence of drink or drugs, will kill.

REGARDS

Phil

Didn't I read somewhere, that there was a proposal to raise the age for being able to drive from 17 to 18. Also, that it would be illegal for someone who had just passed their driving test, to carry passengers for 12 months? Thereby going someway to eliminating the 'showing off' factor? Seems a good starting point.

 

[st13phil]

Safe riding. We are off to live at a golf resort near Roldan (Murcia).

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your new life out there. BTW, if you've never seen it, the Fallas de San Jose held in Valencia, which starts on 14th March next year and culminates in the crema on the night of 19th March is well worth the trip. We stayed at the El Saler Parador (a passable golf course is there too, so I'm told ) in 2006 so we could visit the festival and I've never seen anything quite like it!

 

[hawk20]

Yes, I totally agree! I have recently been watching the many re-runs of 'Top Gear' on Freeview, one programme after the other, and there is definitely a strong message coming across that driving fast and burning rubber is cool. With Clarkson's insatiate appetite for driving the World's fastest cars at insane speeds, on an aerodrome or on the Continent, the same 'speed is glamourous' message comes across very strongly. I can well imagine that many young drivers, mostly hot-headed young males, like to emulate their heroes, Clarkson and the The Stig, but they do it on the UK road network and risk their lives as well as ours. Hammond's 300mph crash put a brake on proceedings, but only for a few months. Drink reduces inhibitions and only exacerbates the problem. Urgent action is required but I have yet to see a formulae that I believe will work. I expect the death toll will continue rise until they realize that inappropriate use of speed, especially if under the influence of drink or drugs, will kill.

REGARDS

Phil

Yes and now they have the example of Lewis Hamilton being banned for a month for driving at about 122mph. Here's a link: - http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/181220...-speeding.html

 

[hawk20]

Didn't I read somewhere, that there was a proposal to raise the age for being able to drive from 17 to 18. Also, that it would be illegal for someone who had just passed their driving test, to carry passengers for 12 months? Thereby going someway to eliminating the 'showing off' factor? Seems a good starting point.

Funnily enough I did not fully understand the importance of this idea till I saw the Last Chance driving Schoo; programme on ITV tonight. some amazing figures. Young people with 1 passenger have a 39% higher chnce of serious accident than if driving alone. And if two or more passengers a 71% increase in risk of accident.

The other horrifying figure was that for everyone passing the test one in six will be involved in a serious accident within only two years. Having seen some serious accidents you can't help wonder if we would take the risk if we really believed the figures.

 

[st13phil]

Didn't I read somewhere, that there was a proposal to raise the age for being able to drive from 17 to 18. Also, that it would be illegal for someone who had just passed their driving test, to carry passengers for 12 months? Thereby going someway to eliminating the 'showing off' factor? Seems a good starting point.

I remember hearing the same "ideas" being bandied about a few weeks back. While it's clear that we need to work out how to reduce the appalling crash rate amongst young/new drivers, I fancy that these ideas would just be another restriction that has good intentions but no discernable benefit. My main concerns are:

1. Raising the age for new drivers from 17 to 18 would just delay the carnage by a year. Young males in particular have a poorly developed sense of danger and this leads them to take risks that (most) older males wouldn't. Risk assessment skills do not get close to the best they're going to get in an average male before they reach the age of about 25. So we'll stop all males under that age driving, then?
2. Not carrying passengers sounds a smart idea on the surface because it eliminates one key element that is essential for showing off: the audience. But it also eliminates the opportunity for a young driver to be influenced by and learn from passengers who are more experienced drivers too. So what should we have? A law that prevents a new young driver from carrying passengers under the age of (say) 25? And how would we enforce that?

Once you scratch below the surface of these headline-grabbing proposals it's clear that they are just that, a headline grabbing "solution" that's ill conceived.

Putting the young male "risk taking" behaviour to one side for a moment (because that's only part of the story), the real issue is that inexperienced drivers of any age are more likely to have a collision than more experienced drivers. Our challenge is to address the question of how we ensure new drivers quickly gain the experience they need to drive safely.

My suggestions are:

1. Start educating teenagers (say from the age 14) about driving. About the responsibilities it entails; the risks that are a part of it; the benefits that doing it well can bring and so forth
2. Continue to develop driver training and the driving test. Much has been improved from what it was 20 years ago, but it still falls short of what is needed. My suggestions include the introduction of a formal "training log" whereby each and every training drive is analysed and assessed by the instructor. Properly used, this could bring great benefits to not just the instruction phase, but also to the driving test where the examiner could, if they so wished, probe more deeply into the skills that the novice driver has demonstrated difficulty in aquiring
3. The initial driving test should be followed up by a second, more rigorous, driving assessment after (say) 4 months. If the candidate does not demonstrate a sufficient skill level at that stage then their licence to drive should be curtailed so that they can only drive accompanied by an instructor in order to take further training. This training should be completed in a reasonable elapsed time (say 6 months) and then they can submit for assessment again. If they fail a second time then they go back to the start, i.e. Learner status and a requirement to take the initial test again
4. There should be a further formal assessment for all drivers at (say) 9 months after they passed their first post-test assessment. Again, this should trigger remedial training if they do not meet the required standard.
5. Finally, I believe that all drivers should have a mandatory re-test at 5 year intervals. A minor fail should not result in the licence to drive being suspended but instead require formal, logged, training to be undertaken followed by a re-test within a relatively short time frame (so as to minimise the time that others are exposed to a "below standard" driver); A significant fail (caused by dangerous driving practices) should result in suspension of the licence and a re-test after formal accompanied training

Some of this may seem a bit arduous, but we have a serious problem with driver quality that needs to be addressed. If we were serious about improving road safety then we'd be serious about this sort of driver education and assessment too.

 

[hawk20]

My suggestions are:

1. Start educating teenagers (say from the age 14) about driving. About the responsibilities it entails; the risks that are a part of it; the benefits that doing it well can bring and so forth
2. Continue to develop driver training and the driving test. Much has been improved from what it was 20 years ago, but it still falls short of what is needed. My suggestions include the introduction of a formal "training log" whereby each and every training drive is analysed and assessed by the instructor. Properly used, this could bring great benefits to not just the instruction phase, but also to the driving test where the examiner could, if they so wished, probe more deeply into the skills that the novice driver has demonstrated difficulty in aquiring
3. The initial driving test should be followed up by a second, more rigorous, driving assessment after (say) 4 months. If the candidate does not demonstrate a sufficient skill level at that stage then their licence to drive should be curtailed so that they can only drive accompanied by an instructor in order to take further training. This training should be completed in a reasonable elapsed time (say 6 months) and then they can submit for assessment again. If they fail a second time then they go back to the start, i.e. Learner status and a requirement to take the initial test again
4. There should be a further formal assessment for all drivers at (say) 9 months after they passed their first post-test assessment. Again, this should trigger remedial training if they do not meet the required standard.
5. Finally, I believe that all drivers should have a mandatory re-test at 5 year intervals. A minor fail should not result in the licence to drive being suspended but instead require formal, logged, training to be undertaken followed by a re-test within a relatively short time frame (so as to minimise the time that others are exposed to a "below standard" driver); A significant fail (caused by dangerous driving practices) should result in suspension of the licence and a re-test after formal accompanied training

Some of this may seem a bit arduous, but we have a serious problem with driver quality that needs to be addressed. If we were serious about improving road safety then we'd be serious about this sort of driver education and assessment too.

For shorthand this is the usual bureaucratic belief that more education and more testing will solve the problem. It doesn't. We have had stronger, harder, better driving tests to no avail at all. While young men have Top Gear and Lewis H as heroes and while the whole emphasis of makers is on 'Sport' and performance, young men will want to drive fast. (And some older ones too). No driving test removes the desire to go near the edge and see how fast you can drive. And in doing it, like in so much else, accidents and occasional trips over the edge are inevitable.

 

[Myros]

having been young myself

I can remember what it was like, and I was pretty sensible, but I still enjoyed the thrill of driving quickly. 75 in my old beetle then was more exciting and scary than 125 in my Merc is now. The reason being it and we were all so new and it was uncharted territory.
Human nature is what it is. Sadly, trial and error learning plays as much part in life as didactic and insightful learning, and it's from the near-misses and the holy sh*ts that we learn just how dangerous we are being, coupled with increasing age and the more mature outlook that comes with it.
I don't think we can blame Top Gear. Fast young drivers were a problem when I was that age, when TG still reviewed caravans and had Noel Tidy-beard as a presenter. Perhaps the main differences are the power of the cars then and now, and the numbers on the road.
Not that many youngsters had cars 30 years ago, and what they had tended to be a bit asthmatic. My beetle was pushed for 75 flat out and took about 15 seconds 0-60, trying hard. Look at the Halfords special/maxpower brigade today and what they can do with their cars. Much more frightening. We also had a lot more traffic cops back then. Nothing like one of those behind you to make you watch your p's and q's.
Perhaps we'd be better restricting young drivers to cars of lower power output, and curfewing them off the roads after 21:00 hours. That might work. It would make the insurance costs a bit more bearable as well, and it might make them more attentive drivers if thay only have 50 horsepower to hustle about with.
Just a few thoughts.

 

[st13phil]

For shorthand this is the usual bureaucratic belief that more education and more testing will solve the problem.

Sorry, I disagree. I do not subscribe to the notion that given enough training anyone can do anything. Life's not like that. Some have a good aptitude for complex tasks (like driving) and some have a lower aptitude, and many can develop their skills to be adequately competent. But some won't ever have any real ability for particular tasks and therefore shouldn't engage in them. Good driving has such strong social benefits, and bad driving such high social costs, that we should be more discerning in deciding what skills we aim to equip them with and who ends up with the privilige and who doesn't.

Good driving is about an appropriate mixture of attitude, education and experience. Have any two out of the three and you have a good start. Have the third element and you stand a real chance. Take a look at the most effective driver improvement programs anywhere in the world and this is what they concentrate on. Are they all wrong? No.

Would you get in a passenger plane without the knowledge that the pilot had an appropriate attitude, was educated so that they understood how to influence things to go right and had the experience to be able to analyse a random collection of events in real-time quickly and correctly so that they could apply an appropriate set of responses? No? Well why would you expect to share the roads with people who don't have that mix of skills?

I also proposed routine testing because that goes a good way towards reinforcing the notion that a driving licence is a privilege not a right. It has the significant side benefit of being able to identify those who fall below the level of skill required and either to have them develop those skills or be removed from the roads as a driver.

 

[st13phil]

Well said, Myros.

 

[jberks]

Isn't it more that clarkson and co are merely reflecting our desire to drive fast. Doing what we'd all like to do. Our desire for speed isn't driven by them, merely reflected.
We play agressive video games but don't go around killing each other.
I just don't subscribe to the idea that we can be that heavily influenced by the media. If we can, better shut the Rovers and the Old Vic as that's clearly fueling binge drinking.

We've always enjoyed speed and we always will. It's an instinct. Danger releases endorphins and we get pleasure from it. Thats why young lads speed. Not influences, just basic braing chemistry. Are we really saying that young lads have pictures of 911s on their walls because they are pretty? Speed, power and danger fascinate us. It's what makes us human.

We can and should limit their ability to hurt themsleves by limiting the cars they can drive but whatever we do, they will still do daft things. I did and you did. Its a right of passage and Not that I condone bad driving but I still say I learned more in those few short seconds before the impact that I did in hundreds of hours of driving and in the longer term, it made me a better driver. Many of us needed a shunt to realise that we weren't invincible. We can't stop it happening but hopefully as things advance with airbags and the like, we can make it more survivable.
I also agree that all of us would beenfit from a retest every 5 years. The fact that we can pass a test, and drive forever more with no requirement for a critique at any point is insane.

 

[hawk20]

I also agree that all of us would beenfit from a retest every 5 years. The fact that we can pass a test, and drive forever more with no requirement for a critique at any point is insane.

Not often I disagree with you Jberks. But the accidents are not coming from the experienced drivers who you would put through endless retests. They are mainly coming from those who have recently taken the test. Doesn't seem the test has much to do with it.

By the way, many or most experienced drivers would find it hard to pass the test as we all develop our own styles and idiosynchrocies - often quite safely but not in keeping with the bureaucratic rule book for tests.

 

[Splatt]

For shorthand this is the usual bureaucratic belief that more education and more testing will solve the problem. It doesn't. We have had stronger, harder, better driving tests to no avail at all. While young men have Top Gear and Lewis H as heroes and while the whole emphasis of makers is on 'Sport' and performance, young men will want to drive fast. (And some older ones too). No driving test removes the desire to go near the edge and see how fast you can drive. And in doing it, like in so much else, accidents and occasional trips over the edge are inevitable.

There was a programme on the box Wednesday "Last Chance" where they are trying to teach 10 (many fails) learners to pass the driving test. During the program they had on a psychologist who stated people drive according to how their minds work. The learners include a young speed mad maniac, a card carrying plonker, a young female with a terminal attitude problem and another older one who would burst into uncontrollable floods of tears if the instructor mentioned the dreaded word "reverse". Now I am also one of those who is very much against a police state but it does make me wonder if there should be some form of advanced psychometric testing of learners to ensure that they are appropriately mentally equipped before granting them a license to drive.

 

[Schtum]

Motorcyclists = Organ Donors.!

First time on this site for a while and I have to read this ****e!

U really are a total tosser!

 

[Schtum]

Perhaps we'd be better restricting young drivers to cars of lower power output, and curfewing them off the roads after 21:00 hours. That might work. It would make the insurance costs a bit more bearable as well, and it might make them more attentive drivers if they only have 50 horsepower to hustle about with.

Long overdue IMO. Well said.