Definitely a good idea ,
Teenagers inevitably are erratic in nature ,they are motivated by ,bravado ,peer pressure,an inflated sense of invulnerability etc.
Thier lack of years ,leads to a lack of experience and inevitably poor decision making.
If their misdeeds and mistakes could be demonstrated and discussed with them ,inevitably they would be more cautious when driving.
A system like this could also be used to justify a sanction ,ie your driving was poor last week ,you can't use the car next week.
I would have used it ,if it had been around when my two were teenagers .
Tony g
|
|
Why dont you just sew a tracker into their a*** while you're at it.
|
|
Just the kind of response I would expect from a teenager Jamie ,well done you make my point really well.
|
|
|
If you let an insurance company supply one (Aviva or Co-Op?) you can benefit from preferental insurance premiums, related to time of day and style of driving
|
|
I'd still rather pay extra than have an electronic smarta*** looking over my shoulder.
|
How much would you pay to try and protect one of your kids from being involved in a serious accident, because they're inexperienced reckless drivers.
|
because they're inexperienced reckless drivers.
Inexperience is not synonymous with reckless. About 20% of new drivers have an accident in their first year of driving. That means four out of five don't have an accident.
Wrapping children in cotton wool is a bad idea. One day you have to let go of the reins.
Tony,
You were a new driver once. Your kids passed a more rigorous testing regime than you did. You were allowed to get on with it, so why not extend the same courtesy to others?
|
You're seriously quoting the fact that only one in 5 young drivers have an accident in their first year of driving to be a posative thing ?
The fact that theyre inexperienced leads them to be reckless ,they have to little understanding of the consequences of their actions.
Driving to many young drivers is a buzz they're excited by it .Thats one of the reasons they have so many accidents.
I've never wrapped my kids in cotton wool, I've always insisted they understand the consequences of their actions .Its about responsibility to themselves and others around them. One is a building society manager ,The other runs a successful building company with her husband .Theyre capable because we spent time with them as children and teenagers .
I was a new driver once ,a good friend of mine had his face badly scarred after going through the windscreen of a car I was a passenger in .Not something I would want my kids to get on with !
Check out this website for information that's more than just an opinion
www.youngdrivinginsurance.co.uk/why-are-young-driv...l
Tony g
|
The fact that theyre inexperienced leads them to be reckless ,they have to little understanding of the consequences of their actions.
Driving to many young drivers is a buzz they're excited by it .Thats one of the reasons they have so many accidents.
Lazy tropes. I remember after I passed my test-I wasn't a particularly good driver-but I knew that I wasn't. Most of my mistakes came from indecision, shortly followed by anxiety at undue hesitation leading to a rash maneouvre.
Black boxes would have been no help-in fact they would have been a hindrance.
As Jamie says, your friend went through the windscreen because he was disinclined to wear a seatbelt. Simple as that.
|
Unthrottled,
(Black boxes would have been no help-in fact they would have been a hindrance.)
(As Jamie says, your friend went through the windscreen because he was disinclined to wear a seatbelt. Simple as that.)
Justify the first statement .
He went through the windscreen ,not because he was disinclined ,it wasn't a considered decision,
He didn't wear a seat belt because he had to little experience of the consequences of not wearing one .
I never drive without wearing a seat belt do you.?
|
Black boxes would have been no help-in fact they would have been a hindrance.
Justify this statement
Like most new drivers, most of my errors were made by indecision, especially at junctions and roundabouts.
The thought process tended to go like this:
1.) I'm not sure if there is enough time to pull out without causing that driver to brake. I'd better not.
2.) Actually that car is not moving as quickly as I thought. I could have gone
3.)There's a line of traffic behind me. They're impatient that I missed a gap, I'd better not make that mistake again.
4.) There's a gap. I'd better go for it!
5.) Oops! That gap wasn't as big as the first one. Better accelerate briskly.
The thought process wasn't reckless-it was correct. Black boxes indiscriminately penalise shap acceleration, when in actual fact it is often the right thing to do.
He didn't wear a seat belt because he had to little experience of the consequences of not wearing one .
How many of us have direct experience of pitching through a windscreen? He didn't wear one because he thought it wouldn't happen to him. People knew the consequences of flying through the windscreen in the 1950's-they just chose to ignore those risks.
|
|
|
Inexperienced and reckless are not the same thing. Theres plenty of very experienced reckless drivers and sensible inexperienced ones. There is this assumption that 100% of drivers under 25 are reckless thugs.
You were a new driver once. Your kids passed a more rigorous testing regime than you did. You were allowed to get on with it, so why not extend the same courtesy to others?
This is a good point. Any driver who's passed their test in the last 10 odd years has passed a harder test than their parents. They've also had far more hours tuition than their parents did. Parents in their 40s and older, when speaking to their son/daughters driving instructor always ask 'when can they book their test?' after 2 or 3 lessons. This is usually followed up by 'i passed after 7 hours tuition!!!' before admitting that was in 1978. When the instructor points out they need 35-50 hours, the parents have a heart attack.
You're seriously quoting the fact that only one in 5 young drivers have an accident in their first year of driving to be a posative thing ?
No. The fact 4 out of 5 dont have an accident at all is a positive thing. That means the majority are absolutely fine.
I was a new driver once ,a good friend of mine had his face badly scarred after going through the windscreen of a car I was a passenger in .Not something I would want my kids to get on with !
Before seatbelts were compulsory? Just guessing.
Edited by jamie745 on 06/02/2012 at 22:05
|
(You were a new driver once. Your kids passed a more rigorous testing regime than you did. You were allowed to get on with it, so why not extend the same courtesy to others?)
If the current driving test is so rigerous ,why do one in five get involved in an accident so soon after passing it .clearly they don't learn enough from passing the test, to keep them safe when they begin driving.
Where does courtesy come in where the welfare of children is concerned ,at 17 teenagers still needs lots of guidance ,they certainly don't need to be( left to get on with it).
(before seat belts were compulsory) True ,but they were in the car ,we just didn't have the good sense to use them.However the accident was caused by an inexperienced young driver speeding .
|
If the current driving test is so rigerous ,why do one in five get involved in an accident so soon after passing it .clearly they don't learn enough from passing the test, to keep them safe when they begin driving.
The rate of serious accidents has been in decline for many years. You were, statistically speaking, a higher risk to other road users than your children were when they first took to the roads.
You were happy to drive when you were young and inexperienced so you should extend the same courtesy to other new drivers.
This 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude is very prevalent in the baby boomer generation. Keen to hang on to their own perks and privileges (final salary pensions, cat C1 + E driving licence etc.) but equally keen to disqualify younger people from enjoying the same benefits.
Edited by unthrottled on 06/02/2012 at 23:58
|
|
unthrottled .
(You were statistically speaking, a higher risk to other road users than your children were when they first took to the roads.)
Can you provide statistics or factual information to prove that ,I doubt it ,it's a statement to support your viewpoint.
(You were happy to drive when you were young and inexperienced so you should extend the same courtesy to other new drivers.)
This has nothing to do with preventing young drivers from driving ,it's about making the experience as safe as possible for them and other drivers .
(This 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude is very prevalent in the baby boomer generation. Keen to hang on to their own perks and privileges (final salary pensions, cat C1 + E driving licence etc.) but equally keen to disqualify younger people from enjoying the same benefits.)
Absolute nonsense ,this is about keeping your children safe ,not disqualifying them from enjoying anything.
Tony g
|
|
He went through the windscreen ,not because he was disinclined ,it wasn't a considered decision,
It doesnt need to be a considered decision now. The Government took that out of motorists hands many years ago.
He didn't wear a seat belt because he had to little experience of the consequences of not wearing one .
If it was compulsory do you think he'd have worn it anyway?
I never drive without wearing a seat belt do you.?
No. Because its illegal. I passed my test in 2002. I dont remember a time where seatbelts were not compulsory. Wearing a seatbelt is no longer a 'judgement call' for a motorist, its out of their hands. There was much resistance to compulsory seatbelts for decades before it came in, in the 60s people still believed you were safer if thrown clear from an accident rather than trapped in place. Believe it or not, it wasnt just 17 year olds who didnt want to wear a seatbelt, it was people of all ages. Plenty of experienced adults who should supposedly know better still get tickets for not using a seatbelt every day.
If the current driving test is so rigerous ,why do one in five get involved in an accident so soon after passing it .clearly they don't learn enough from passing the test, to keep them safe when they begin driving.
You cant look at the positive side can you? That 80% of drivers have no accidents in their first year, which is an improvement on 10 years ago. There's only so much you can learn, you get to a point where no more tuition can ever be a substitute for the experience of driving by yourself. Driving on your own is something they can't teach obviously, something no lesson, test or textbook can help you with. You can teach and test as much as you like but you've got to let them out there on their own eventually, you cannot teach or test in place of experience.
True ,but they were in the car ,we just didn't have the good sense to use them.
Nor did plenty of experienced older drivers back in those days. We took the nicey nicey approach with seatbelts for years, asking people nicely to wear them. But people didnt, so we had to make it law. We did the same thing with mobile phones, asked nicely for years for drivers not to use them while driving, but people didnt listen. The seatbelt example is irrelevent today in 2012. You dont need to have the sense to choose to use one, its the law.
However the accident was caused by an inexperienced young driver speeding.
Experienced old drivers speed and crash everyday. Some even manage to crash without speeding. Contrary to popular belief speeding doesnt automatically result in death.
|
Jamie,
(You cant look at the positive side can you? That 80% of drivers have no accidents in their first year, which is an improvement on 10 years ago. There's only so much you can learn, you get to a point where no more tuition can ever be a substitute for the experience of driving by yourself. )
Tell me what you find positive about the 3000 drivers under 25 ,who are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year. rospa.
What you also neglect to say is that the figures are not much better by year two .
By the end of year two 35 % of young drivers have been involved in an accident.
Can you provided real confirmation that young drivers have less accidents than they did ten years ago, or is that a maybe statement that suits your view point.
Remember that I'm only interested in keeping young drivers safer on the roads ,not on curtailing their freedom to enjoy cars and driving .
|
Tell me what you find positive about the 3000 drivers under 25 ,who are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year.
Strawman statistics. Around 1,800 people died in road accidents last year in total, over 400 were pedestrians and over 350 were motorcyclists. In the fact the average over the last decade is around the 3,000 mark so the actual deaths out of the 3,000 you dubiously quote are a tiny minority. Dont go lumping a car-park bump in with deaths to make your statistics look worse or more valid. Theres only one thing worse than people who spout unsubstantiated rubbish and thats people who try to back up their unsubstantiated rubbish with bogus statistics.
Can you provided real confirmation that young drivers have less accidents than they did ten years ago, or is that a maybe statement that suits your view point.
I can confirm road deaths as a whole are lower than ten years ago, despite an increase of over 7 million vehicles on the road in the last 15 years.
unthrottled . (You were statistically speaking, a higher risk to other road users than your children were when they first took to the roads.) Can you provide statistics or factual information to prove that ,I doubt it ,it's a statement to support your viewpoint.
I can tell you that during the 60's and 70's, there were around 7,000 road deaths a year in the UK on average (i wonder how many couldve been prevented by compulsory seat belts?). In the last decade its averaged less than half of that (with an all time low in 2010) despite there being more than double the amount of vehicles on the road in comparison to the 70s. Do you refuse to believe you were a bigger risk to others than your children were? Is that so outrageous for your ego to cope with?
This 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude is very prevalent in the baby boomer generation. Keen to hang on to their own perks and privileges (final salary pensions, cat C1 + E driving licence etc.) but equally keen to disqualify younger people from enjoying the same benefits.
Very good point unthrottled. Most people of Tony's age have this very pathetic attitude.
Absolute nonsense ,this is about keeping your children safe ,not disqualifying them from enjoying anything. Tony g
Oh another one who thinks having children qualifies them to know everything. This is all we need.
Do you have any statistics to support your argument or is that just a statement which backs up your view point Tony?
|
Jamie,
(Oh another one who thinks having children qualifies them to know everything)
Well that's a mature, considered viewpoint,the last time I heard rubbish like that was in my student days.
( Dont go lumping a car-park bump in with deaths to make your statistics look worse or more valid. Theres only one thing worse than people who spout unsubstantiated rubbish and thats people who try to back up their unsubstantiated rubbish with bogus statistics.)
I couldn't agree more ,not once do you offer back up to justify your figures or statements .
I justified my 3000 serious accidents and deaths a year statement ,earlier in the thread ,the information is on the ROSPA site .
Can you do the same ,or are you content to go on making it up as you go along .
|
Well that's a mature, considered viewpoint,the last time I heard rubbish like that was in my student days.
So you do think having children qualifies you to know everything?
I couldn't agree more ,not once do you offer back up to justify your figures or statements .
Actually i offered three sets of statistics but you obviously chose to ignore them.
I justified my 3000 serious accidents and deaths a year statement ,earlier in the thread ,the information is on the ROSPA site .
Funny you mention Rospa because they also say...
In 2010, 154 car drivers over the age of 60 years were killed in road accidents, 1,108 were seriously injured and 9,423 slightly injured. Although the casualty trend is decreasing, it is decreasing slower than for other ages.
Department for Transport statistics also prove that out of the 1,800 (est) who died on the roads in 2010, over 400 were pedestrians, over 300 were motorcyclists and just over 100 were cyclists. Which means out of car occupants to be killed, over 15% of them were drivers over 60. How is that positive Tony?
|
Can you provided real confirmation that young drivers have less accidents than they did ten years ago, or is that a maybe statement that suits your view point.
I can.
Here's a link:
www.roadsafe.com/pool/files/young driver road accident statistics.pd
(data provided by the Department for Transport)
I'll highlight the relevant bit.
"...Compared to 1994-1998 averages, the number of KSI casualties in young car driver accidents was 52 per cent lower in 2009, and the number of fatalities was 43 per cent lower..."
If we really must use snooper technology, it should be fitted to the cars of drivers over the age of 75 to try to curb their high accident rates from Right of Way Violations...
In favour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
