What's needed is a testicular clamp that must be worn by any driver under 25 which talks via bluetooth to the car's management system and progressively tightens when the speed goes over 35 mph or the revs over 2000rpm.
Hmmm, some might enjoy it though.....
|
Under 25's have always been killed on the roads and always will be. Measures etc won't do anything to help.
I'd be mighty miffed to be limited to 1000cc. Cars with 1 litre engines are simply unacceptable. Besides, many of the most horrific crashes seem to happen in 1.1 litre Saxo's anyway.
|
|
it should be the responsibility of all dads to take their offspring round a holding yard of smashed up cars where you can actually see blood and brain tissue in the laminated screens,i find this sobering and thought provoking,too many kids these days dont know what it is to feel real hard pain till they are crying to the paramedics
|
|
|
|
The number of people who die in hospitals from MRSA and related infections is approximately twice the number killed on the roads. The number of people in hospital compared to the number of people who use the roads must be small.
If the intention of society is to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths then we, as members of society, are starting in the wrong place.
Road deaths always attract headlines. Some cause road closures for hours. Why are hospitals where MRSA deaths occur not also closed for forensic examination? Is causing death by dirt less of a crime than causing death by driving?
|
while what you say is not motoring related mjm i will still answer this for you
go and see a relative at any hospital and see how many visitors wash their hands prior to going on the wards,the only time it is strictly enforced is in the baby unit
maybe we should start with hanging a few visitors ?
|
go and see a relative at any hospital and see how many visitors wash their hands prior to going on the wards
Off topic, but the most disgusting toilet I have ever seen was in a Devon hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
I have very little sympathy for someone who kills his/herself through over-confident or dangerous driving. To me it seems that the idiots are removing themselves from the genepool.
The unfortunate consequence is that they often take others with them (be it their passenger, an innocent pedestrian or fellow driver). Not only are cocky inexperienced drivers a danger to themselves, they're a danger to everyone. But... legislating is not the answer - I would've thought the last 10 years of Blair might've taught everyone that. The minute you make it harder to get a licence, people will simply start driving without one.
It's a sad fact of life that there are idiots out there, but no number of measures will change that fact. Just try to keep out of their way.
|
When are we going to learn to accept that moving millions of people around the country in metal boxes at speeds of up to 70mph isn't always going to be safe, people will die, and that its a fact of life?
Why must we pour millions into useless and pointless schemes, speed cameras and suchlike whilst we let thousands of other people die from preventable NON motoring based deaths every year?
|
|
|
I have to agree with greg. Most recent (15 years) legislation is unenforced.. see pitbulls , mobile phones insurance...
To add another law when the existing are not enforced is to continue with the folishnes of politicians who think that new law = problem solved.
I suggest far longer driver training, community service lasting months for those who drive without tax or insurance.. and a 100% loss of all entitlemnets to state benefits for 5 years to those offending more than 3 times in 5 years.
(It will not happen of course since our politicians act as muppets and the judges are no better)
madf
|
I agree with Greg too - it's just natures way of thinning out the gene pool.
It's better the reckless and dangerous are removed early on , before they leave widows and orphans, or cause greater carnage later in life
MVP
|
|
And they leaves organs for others to have transplants. If roads were 100% safe there's be no organ donors.
|
Some rather strange comments in this thread. Legislation DOES work. I am of an age whereby I can remember seatbelt and drink-driving laws (breath test) being introduced. All sorts of reasons were produced at the time as to why these wouldn't work - but they have worked, and many thousands of lives have been saved over the last three decades as a result. Saying that 'accidents will happen' is idiotic and crass to say the least - tell that to the parents. There are very very few genuine 'accidents'.
There ARE prosections for mobile phone use. Several hundred people have been prosecuted since the law was introduced in my county alone - and I know a lady who was pulled over and prosecuted for using her phone.
One issue today is that cars handle much better and have better performance than 30 years ago. When an accident does happen it tends to happen at higher speeds and be much more serious; i.e. fewer accidents but more serious ones.
There should be restrictions on the power-to-weight ratio (or some other performance-related figure of merit) that younger drivers can own and drive. Probably one limit for under-21's and a higher one for under 25's. I think a judge recently commented (after yet another fatal accident) that young drivers should not be able to drive high performance cars like Impreza turbo, Evo's, 330i's. They don't have the maturity or experience to use the machinery responsibly and they vastly overestimate their ability. Cocky young guy, plus mates and a fast car = accident looking for somewhere to happen.
A young relative of mine (17 y.o.) was killed two years ago because his mate (driving an Evo) took at curve too fast, lost control and hit the kerb (doing 60mph in a 30mph area - speed doesn't kill, right?). My relative was in the back of the car and thrown out through the back widow onto the road and died of head injury. This summer, not more than 2 miles from my house, an 18 year old girl was killed when her similar-aged boyfriend misjudged an overtake in his ST24 Mondeo - estimated speed was over 90mph on a 60mph road. There are still a half-mile of marks on the road and there are always fresh flowers at the impact spot.
|
|
Cocky young guys overestimate their own ability, yes, Aprilia, but they also overestimate the ability of what they are 'driving'. That's why instruction is important. They see rally drivers going at incredible speeds and think, well, I can go at speeds nearly as incredible... It's quite clear that a lot of young drivers haven't a clue how cars actually behave in extreme situations, especially when there are four passengers in the Metro's back seat and the offside rear tyre is a bit soft...
|
They see rally drivers going at incredible speeds and think well I can go at speeds nearly as incredible..
Indeed. And I'd rather that they tried to reach those incredible speeds in a 1.0 Polo than a Mitsubishi Evo......(they might actually manage it in the latter). A young driver in a fast car is much more likely to have a fatality than a young driver in a slow car - ask the insurance companies their opinion on the matter!
|
|
|
|
There should be restrictions on the power-to-weight ratio (or some other performance-related figure of merit) that younger drivers can own and drive. Probably one limit for under-21's and a higher one for under 25's. I think a judge recently commented (after yet another fatal accident) that young drivers should not be able to drive high performance cars like Impreza turbo Evo's 330i's. They don't have the maturity or experience to use the machinery responsibly and they vastly overestimate their ability.
You do seem to be rather tarring everyone with the same brush here. Most of the mates I have in my car, for example, have no interest whatsoever in cars and would be rather unimpressed with any attempts I might make to 'show off' my car. Not everyone who is under 25 and choses to drive a nice car is going to want to raz it around the block with 4 chavs in the back doing 60 in a 30 zone.
>>This summer not more than 2 miles from my house an18 year old girl was killed when her similar-aged boyfriend misjudged an overtake in his ST24 Mondeo - estimated speed was over 90mph on a 60mph road.
A misjudged overtake can happen in any car. Infact, the slower the car, the more likely it is to happen. It's neive to believe that the guy you mention would not ever have attempted to overtake things if he had a Mondeo 1.6 instead of his Mondeo ST24. And the chances of his car being unable to safely make the overtake in a 1.6 is of course higher than a 2.5 V6.
I do sort of appreciate your point - 17 year olds in powerful RWD cars are a mistake waiting to happen, for example, but this really isn't something you can generalise.
|
You do seem to be rather tarring everyone with the same brush here. Most of the mates I have in my car for example have no interest whatsoever in cars and would be rather unimpressed with any attempts I might make to 'show off' my car. Not everyone who is under 25 and choses to drive a nice car is going to want to raz it around the block with 4 chavs in the back doing 60 in a 30 zone.
Yes I am generalising - that's what you have to do. Its not just 'chavs' that show off, its also nice middle-class kids who can tap their parents for the insurance money to cover a fast car. Seen it enough times. I was even young (and lucky) myself once.
And the chances of his car being unable to safely make the overtake in a 1.6 is of course higher than a 2.5 V6.
Fast cars in young hands are more likely to end up in an accident, that's an indisputable fact. That's why insurance cover for young drivers of fast cars is so expensive (or simply unavailable). But insurance cost is a blunt instrument to keep the young and inexperienced out of fast motors, with increasing affluence there are plenty of mums and dads who can be badgered into lending financial support. So we probably need some legislation limiting horsepower or Power-weight. We have a similar system with motorbikes - that reduced a lot of the carnage when it was introduced.
|
Its not just 'chavs' that show off its also nice middle-class kids who can tap their parents for the insurance money to cover a fast car. Seen it enough times. I was even young (and lucky) myself once. >>
When I was young chavs didn't exist, and Teds, mods and rockers didn't usually have cars. Young drivers tended overwhelmingly to be from the well-heeled classes.
I can assure everyone that young rich people in Ford Zodiacs, Lancias etc. could be very reckless indeed. I too was lucky.
|
I too was lucky.
And I should have added: some people were very unlucky indeed.
|
|
At the risk of seeming finicky, I would like to correct any impression my two posts above may have given that I am rich. In youth I had the good fortune to meet people from the well-heeled classes and survive their driving, but I have never been well-heeled myself. Not that I am complaining.
|
|
Legislation DOES work. I am of an age whereby I can remember seatbelt and drink-driving laws (breath test) being introduced.
It has an effect, but it doesn't work fully. People are still being splatted on windscreens because they're too stupid to buckle up. People are also driving half-cut into pedestrians or oncoming traffic. Yes it'd be moreso if the legislation hadn't existed, but it still happens every day.
A lot of people of my generation (not including myself I hasten to add) have a complete disregard for any legislation, whether it be speed, drink-driving, health & safety etc etc. If someone's intent on driving 60mph through town in an Evo, they'll do it whether or not the car is taxed, MOTd, insured etc etc. Every week in my local paper there's at least one story about someone being fined for driving whilst disqualified.
|
>> Legislation DOES work. I am of an age >> whereby I can remember seatbelt and drink-driving laws (breath test) being introduced. It has an effect but it doesn't work fully. People are still being splatted on windscreens because they're too stupid to buckle up.
Seat belt compliance is VERY high - over 90%. Seat belt and drink-driving legislation has had a MASSIVE effect on casualty reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some under 25s will manage to kill themselves no matter what they drive. Being able to recognise hazardous situations developing sufficiently early only comes with experience.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
Quite right escargot. A measure of caution in the young is more a matter of imagination than intelligence. But the urge to explore limits and pit one's destiny against the fates is strong in the young, and some are always going to come to grief.
|
Many 21 year olds regularly and safely drive PCV's and LGV's maturly enough in the course of thier work, so maybe it's not age thats so much the factor, but the other "influences" e.g Mates and loud music, that muddles thier heads when in a social situation.
Billy
|
Many of the prescriptives mentioned (power limit, passenger limit, age restrictions etc) for younger drivers, to my mind, miss the point somewhat - it's rather like shooting the messenger. The problem isn't technonlogy based, but behaviour & experience based.
Lower power?
I don't know the statistics, but I'll wager many more young people are killed in low power cars than high powered ones. Even 50bhp cars can do 80mph - plenty fast enough to kill. The risk horizon or perception of the driver will create, imo, a constant level of danger or risk, no matter if they were driving a Porsche or a Perodua - look at the effect that limiting mopeds to 30mph had - young guys tailgating & doing everything possible to avoid losing speed.
Passenger limits? - well, if that did work initially it would be a one-off 'windfall' - as soon as they were unlimited, there's no reason to think the associated risk would decrease - it would just delay it.
Age restrictions? Well, you can delay 'driving puberty' , but you still have to go through it as some stage - again, that merely shifts the accident statistics up & along a few years.
There's also the constant criminal propensity of some people, driving restrictions will deter them as much as mugging restrictions curb that crime.
I think that utlimately you can't legislate your way out of youth, impetuousness & inexperience - well, maybe only in dystopias of the type described by George Orwell. In a world ultimately where there are no sharp edges, there'll be no sharp minds.
|
In a world ultimately where there are no sharp edges there'll be no sharp minds.
Too true. Unfortunately it appears too late to prevent our country (or indeed the world) from plummeting into an Orwellian dystopia. People no longer accept risk as part of life, and that's apparent with some of the posts on here. Yes, the risk can be minimised, but it'll never be eliminated completely.
|
|
|
|
Thats right billy 25 & why is that? because they have had a higher standard of driver training. With PSV & HGV training alot of it is about awareness & they know its too risky too drink & drive as their licence is their job, hence the extra caution.
So we need far better & longer periods of training & bell boys sugestion of walking aroud an accident yard is brill
Doc
|
|
|
I am not going to rant today (honestly), just offer my opinions quietly. Shh.
Billy is right, IMO. Peer group pressure is huge. Often well into the 20s. Often beyond... but not maybe in the same way. Kids, and that's what they are, can't think straight if they think they're losing face or maybe won't pull that girl they've had their eyes on etc. etc.
Not sure what the solution is, I think there isn't a 100% one, but as a society we need to stop indulging teenagers and kids so much, I don't mean neglect them, I mean stop giving their daft ideas and actions so much credence: they're taken far more seriously than they should be, and given too much slack. 18 year olds think they're 30. They're not. Most of them are daft children.
"You don't understand me". Yes, I understand only too well, so does everyone else....
|
>>18 year olds think they're 30. They're not. Most of them are daft children.
Didn't you mean 30 year olds think they're 18. They're not. Most of them are daft children. ?
|
Mapmaker, in a lot of instances I think you're right! Eternal youth, and it's attendant dizziness, seems to be actively pursued. As I said, peer group pressure is often far too high well into 20s/30s.....
|
|
|
|
Some under 25s will manage to kill themselves no matter what they drive.
That's exactly the point I was making. Let them remove themselves from the genepool. My sympathy is with the families of those people who are killed thanks to one of these idiots. I'm still under 25, but haven't had an accident, and have a clean licence. Nevertheless my insurance for year 1 was horrific, but once it'd become apparent that I wasn't one of "them", my premiums nose-dived, and are now a very reasonable £300 odd p/a.
Surely a good question to ask any driver before giving them insurance is "Have you EVER been involved in a fatal accident, the blame for which was attributed to yourself?". If so, stick another zero on the end of their premium. Only problem being they'll then drive without insurance and kill a few more people before they finally succumb.
|
Make it too expensive or difficult to obtain a licence/cars/insurance and people will just break the law. If happy to do 60 in a 30 zone (and I'm guessing that Lud is *very* seldom happy to do that sort of speed) which is an obvious crime, then frankly driving without insurance which is an undetectable crime (without stop & search) is small beer.
They will show off, they will kill each other... but I know people in their 30s who behave like that on the roads, and I know 17 year olds who don't.
Only education can help, combined with a suitable power restriction (power weight seems very sensible, Aprilia).
|
|
The local speed merchants (not all young) have been targeted by sending police out with mobile radar and ANPR to catch the potential crashers. So far, there have been many seizures, and the accident rate has been reduced considerably. There are still some around, but the local team are on the look-out for the culprits. Old fashioned policing - unfortunately because of the number of deaths involving loss of control. Education? I think the knowledge that the police are actively pursuing fools is all they need.
|
|
|
|
That's exactly the point I was making. Let them remove themselves from the genepool.
In so doing they will take someone else with them. MOST under-25's lack maturity. They are prone to having too-frequent 'rush of blood to the head', the red mist comes down - seen it so many times. The penalty for this should not be death. Lower power-weight ratio cars, more training and driving restrictions do work.
Those of us who remember the motorcycling scene in the 1960's and 1970's will remember the carnage on the roads. I remember on the A6 Derby-Buxton road there would be one fatality a week. Legislation has worked in motorcycling.
Of course there will always be people who break the law, but even if you only got 50% compliance that would be a lot of lives saved.
|
They are prone to having too-frequent 'rush of blood to the head', the red mist comes down - seen it so many times
Precisely what makes a young person young really - and not the sort of thing amenable, by its nature, to legislation or eduation. Just how low (or preformance restricted) would cars have to be to stop a 'determined' young driver from being able to kill themslves or some other? Surely, so low that it would be a danger in itself & effectively, not fit for purpose.
Those of us who remember the motorcycling scene in the 1960's and 1970's will remember the carnage on the roads
And also the pre-crash helmet days, when a fall at 20mph could kill. I'm all in favour of passive & active safety measures, crash helemts & safety belts - good. Motor cyclists still kill themselves in large numbers, pro rata & compared to car drivers. One the the fastest growing groups of fatalities is the older, 'born again' rider - those typically exhibiting the qualities of youth - overexuberance, overconfidence - they surely have access to all the training/driver safety education going, but exhibit those same 'youthful' tendencies.
I personally dislike unnecessary risk, my age I imagine. But to think of a world so cossetted that every fall landed on a feather cushion & every risk was so neutered it only involved a possible endorsement on the credit card, would be less inviting than the desire to get out of bed each morning.
|
>>I'm all in favour of passive & active safety measures,
Like restricting the power:weight ratio?
I suggest a 1.4 montego as the ideal car for youngsters. I still managed to write it off (on black ice, at 40mph tops, probably closer to 30) but a nice safe car in which to crash.
|
Like restricting the power:weight ratio?
The only truly safe power/weight ratio is 0 bhp/ton. A bit low on thrills though.
|
|
Low power to weight ratio cars are boring. Not neccesarily because of the performance, but the sort of car you can get with less than 100bhp/tonne looks boring inside, looks boring outside, is tailored for granny to go to the shops in, and is just not the sort of thing the discerning under 25 wants to be driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
