Should they bring in a law to stop young/inexperienced drivers driving very powerful cars, like the 17/18 year olds that get to drive Daddy's M3 etc.? Ineperienced drivers are dangerous enough as it is (I know I was dangerous and extremely lucky in my MK2 Golf 1300 when I had only just passed my test) without having 2 or 3 hundred bhp under their right foot. IIRC there is some sort of age/cc limit on bikes, so why not cars? Edited by: Dubya
Although i get your point its not a great idea. What about kids doing 60 mph down high streets/outside schools in 1 litre Corsa's and the like? What about low power/low weight cars like Elise's? 118bhp and about 700 kg. What about RWD cars? If your inexperienced its easy to lose control. IMO Law change will do nothing, you need to educate the new drivers.
Yes, they can do 60 in a 1 litre Corsa, and you are going to struggle to stop that, but think how fast they would be going in powerful car, like an M3. When it comes to driving, and being a good driver, there is no substitute for experience. You can't teach experience. Do you honestly believe it is a good idea to let someone with no experience of how to handle a car at speed, and not the foggiest idea what to do if they lose control, drive a very fast car?
good idea on first glance.....however, i think it'd be better to just have people take an extra test for cars that exceed a certain performance. i know i've raced against 16 yr olds who can control a car better, and are more mature than some of my mid 20 yr old mates.
They have a massive problem with this in Oz, with 200 dollar registration you automatically get 3rd party insurance. So kids of 17 and 18 are getting Skylines and 200's, and stuffing them on a regular basis. On a slightly different note, Im a firm believer that there should be a hazardous conditions part to the driving test. So people have experience of different conditions with simulated snow and ice etc... Second to that there should be a retest or competency test every 2-3 yrs. This would keep people off the road who shouldnt have got a liscence in the first place. This would also help bring insurance premiums down I believe. Seems a bit right wing but I think it would be a good thing. I watched an old lady trying to reverse her car out of a parking space outside a bank once. She was reversing with too much lock on and hitting the Audi A6 beside her each time, after watching her repeat her mistake 5 times I got out and offered to reverse her car straight back out of the parking space. The wing on the A6 was like a well chewed chip - This is when I thought we should have retests to keep ppl like this off the roads.
You just need a harder test, I know a lot of older people who haven't got a clue aswell. The driver I trust the most is only 23. Dave!
Harder testing. Restrictions on BHP/cc. Possibly restrictions on insurance groups. No performance modifications.
I also think we should ban all bright colours from young peoples clothing and stop any kind of female contact till they are 21. Dave!
lots of 'kids' driving dads M3s etc etc probably isnt doing it legally anyway. Most insurers wont touch a under 25 on a new shape M car. How would a few rules stop these?
would actually prob be better to have a power-to-weight-ratio...otherwise they'll be a lot of lightweight kit cars being driven but young kids. i still think advanced testing is the way to go.
Good plan, now i'm 25 and done my test i'm all for that. Not sure i'd feel the same if I was 17 again tho. But that ain't gonna happen so f**k um! But to be fair I could still have done some serious damage in my 1.0 nova at 17
1st glance, what a crap idea - soz - i fit into the 25 & over category, but no thats wrong.. admittedly i was lethal when i passed my test, maybe raise the age limit.. 2nd thoughts not too bad idea really, but it'll never work - works for bikes though..
Harder testing won't help, because you simply can't teach experience, and it is experience that makes all the difference IMO.
