29 comments Add a comment
I am fed up listening to the typically narrow minded individuals that think all the problems on the road will be solved with limiting driving age groups. This method DOES NOT work. What we need to do is to provide training and educate young drivers further in the world of driving. Obtaining a driving licence is not the be-all-and-end-all of driving; it is purely a first stepping stone.
We must make young people aware that they can improve their driving after passing their L test, it's called the advanced driving test. We use the same training criteria as the police class 1 drivers (roadcraft) and the only obvious difference is we're not allowed to exceed the speed limit.
It does NOT cost a fortune either, a one off payment of ?65 for under 26s and ?85 for everyone else. You are 70% less likely to be involved in a crash (government figures). We give an explanation with everything we ask you to do, which then leads to a better understanding of the law, car handling and road attitude.
I am 22 and drive a 220 bhp (293 lb/ft torque) car that now accelerates faster than a Porsche Boxter 3.2. Would you have me give up the car that I have worked so hard for, just due to my age? Should it not be based on your ability and the willingness to learn new skills?
Oh, and just to keep things interesting: experience does not mean that you will become a better driver: it only means that you have travelled further than me and not necessarily in a safe manner.
By: Ben Devlin I.A.M. Youth Advisor
Leave a comment
I know this is 'stating the obvious' but it has to be spelt out because some people seem to think very high premiums for very young drivers i.e 17-19 year olds are unreasonable however the only calculation that insurers make is risk balanced against profit.
The simple fact is that statistically young drivers as a group are a high risk.
Further driver training for youngsters, be it RoSPA, IAM or Pass Plus is to be recommended and I agree with the OP on this however convincing an insurer of your competence on an individual basis is impractical and would be far too costly.
ROSPA offer equivalent schemes and I would recommend that anyone wanting to improve their driving try both gropus before deciding.
More worryingly the IAM appears to favour some of the Goverments dafter anti-speed proposals.
Restricting the age of those who can learn would, in my opinion, not only irritate and alienate the youth of the country, but would lead to an increase in car crime, and people driving without licenses and insurance. If you think carefully, you'll realise this. If you are 17, and everyone else you know has learnt at 17, you will also want to. If suddenly, you are told that you are not responsible enough, this would create an attitude which woul d cause people to believe they can still drive.
Following on from this, the main problem is a lack of driving experience, which is caused simply by the age at which we are allowed to learn. If the age is raised to 21, then surely the lack of experience would still be there, just in slightly older drivers. I feel that I, as a 20 year old driver, am a safer driver than someone who is 21 and just starting out, as I already have 2 years of experience.
It is hard enough learning to drive at 17, with insurance companies trying to charge £1200 for a group 2 car without raising the age requirement for a driving license.
Anything that is changed will simply change the age at which inexperienced drivers are allowed on the road. Surely, early education is much better than waiting until later when it's more difficult to learn new skills.
Thanx
making people retake there test would be a good idea. I would love to because I a young and would pass not many older people would though because they would fail.
I'm 16 and very frustrated being one of the youngest in my year at college, a lot of my friends are beginning to be able to drive on public roads, I have to get lifts, which just makes me jealous and I can't wait to start driving. (I'm already working on my car, a mini cooper s, currently has no engine, or gear box
I could go out and learn to drive a moped at 16 on which people have far more accidents than they do in cars, yet to drive a vehicle which is statistically much safer than said mopeds I have to wait an extra year, and pay more insurance for the privilege. and when I turn 17 pass my test, and if I could afford the insurance I could just jump behind the wheel of a high powered car, unlike motorcycles which are better regulated in this sense.
Congo
You may also have evidence of having further training by passing such schemes as Pass Plus, IAM or RoSPA however the fact remains you are a very inexperienced driver in a very high risk category i.e. males under 21.
The insurer does not know that you are "..not stupid and not a boy racer driver..." - how could they - and you are not paying for people who crash their cars any more than I am, you are simply in the category of people who are most likely to be involved in accidents and, even more damming, far more likely to cause death or serious injury as a result.
You can however take steps to help reduce your premium immediately: fit an immobiliser and alarm, park you car in a garage at night, keep your annual mileage to a minimum and swap your 1.4 Honda for a 1 litre Vauxhall or Ford which are cheaper to repair and hence in a lower insurance group.