Young drivers could be banned from carrying non-family passengers.
Young drivers face a ban on carrying anyone other than family members as passengers under proposals being considered by the Government to cut the number of road accidents involving teenagers.
|
>> Young drivers could be banned from carrying non-family passengers.
>> Young drivers face a ban on carrying anyone other than family members as passengers under
>> proposals being considered by the Government to cut the number of road accidents involving teenagers.
Great, now how do you enforce that in practice? Where are all the coppers in patrol cars to enforce that one.
|
|
Cars have become markedly quicker than when we were lads and I fink (sic) that brains have become markedly slower. The amount of drivers texting or 2 face booking now is frightening.
|
The suggestion comes from the ABI.
A cry of 'something must be done' always leads to poor legislation. Dangerous dogs is the lead example.
As Z says enforcement will be a nightmare. Not just the lack of resource but the practical issues. What's family, parents and siblings, second cousins?.Likely need other get outs as well as family; emergencies etc.
OTOH such a law might allow insurers to void claims which I suspect is the ABI interest.
|
|
They'll never get that past their lawyers - discriminating potentially against drivers who haven't got families or live in extra-family situations. What about an 18 year old Squaddie based hundreds of miles from home - who does he take ? His Sergeant Major ?
|
>> They'll never get that past their lawyers - discriminating potentially against drivers who haven't got
>> families or live in extra-family situations. >>
Not difficult at all. It just needs tweaking of the current Learner Driver insurance conditions.
Discrimination is allowed when you offer insurance and impose conditions on driving; eg. mileage, type of car, social & pleasure and business class 1 or whatever. The "family" bit has yet to be defined, but could state - say - that you if you want cheaper insurance, you can choose to insured to drive provided accompanied by a driver with 5 years experience. A much higher priced product could be made available to those who want the freedom to drive unaccompanied.
>> What about an 18 year old Squaddie based hundreds
>> of miles from home - who does he take ? His Sergeant Major ?
>>
The Squaddie does what most people who did own cars did in the past.
|
>>
>> Discrimination is allowed when you offer insurance and impose conditions on driving;
>>
Not if it is racial, religious, sexual orientation, or based on gender.
Discrimination can arise if the restrictions being imposed impact more on one group than another, even indirectly.
|
>> >>
>> >> Discrimination is allowed when you offer insurance and impose conditions on driving;
>> >>
>>
>> Not if it is racial, religious, sexual orientation, or based on gender.
>>
>> Discrimination can arise if the restrictions being imposed impact more on one group than another,
>> even indirectly.
>>
Sorry if I didn't make that obvious. In case anyone else has misunderstood, lawful discrimination is limited to lawful discrimination.
|
>> They'll never get that past their lawyers - discriminating potentially against drivers who haven't got
>> families or live in extra-family situations
I think you've got that the wrong way around... There's no suggestion of an imperative to carry passengers, the proposition is to prohibit newly qualified drivers from carrying around their mates. Agreed though, enforcement will only realistically happen after an accident or a tug for driving like a pillock.
|
>> What's family, parents and siblings, second cousins?.Likely need other get outs as
>> well as family; emergencies etc.
>>
Easily drafted, just need an extension of current Learner Driver insurance conditions.
>> OTOH such a law might allow insurers to void claims which I suspect is the
>> ABI interest.
>>
Yes. That is quite clear. They don't care at all how many youths die showing off to their mates.
|
|
In many cases we do not need new legislation and we could get by with vigorous enforcement of existing legislation. However, we don't have the will or the manpower to do that and in the present financial climate we aren't going to get it.
|
Reminds me of the ban on mobile phone usage. A great idea marred by unwillingness/inability to enforce.
Usually enforced after an accident..
|
"Reminds me of the ban on mobile phone usage. A great idea marred by unwillingness/inability to enforce."
Certainly not true round here. 5,336 people were fined for using a mobile phone whilst driving in Norfolk and Suffolk last year. An increase on the 4,556 charged in 2010.
|
>>Certainly not true round here. 5,336 people were fined for using a mobile phone whilst driving in Norfolk and Suffolk last year. An increase on the 4,556 charged in 2010.<<
So it didn't work as a deterrent then.
Pat
|
"So it didn't work as a deterrent then."
Difficult to say because there's no way of knowing how many offence would have been committed without the police action.
I was actually commenting on the remark that the police are unwilling or unable to enforce the law. At least around here they make a reasonable attempt to do so. The stupidity of drivers is unfortunately beyond their control.
|
>> OTOH such a law might allow insurers to void claims which I suspect is the
>> ABI interest.
Probably not.
It is to an insurer's benefit that as many claims as possible are paid. It is pretty much never in an insurer's interest to avoid a claim. They just want to charge higher premiums to cover the claims and make a higher profit.
Typically when looking at the motivations of an insurer in these discussions it is unlikely to be the avoidance of claims. It is almost always tied to premiums or costs and occasionally marketing.
Bringing in another factor with perceived credibility, that of who your passengers are, allows the insurer to use an additional factor in premium differentiation.
Now *that* is in their interest.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 17 Nov 12 at 13:07
|
>> >> OTOH such a law might allow insurers to void claims which I suspect is
>> the
>> >> ABI interest.
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> It is to an insurer's benefit that as many claims as possible are paid. It
>> is pretty much never in an insurer's interest to avoid a claim. They just want
>> to charge higher premiums to cover the claims and make a higher profit.
>>
NoFM2R:
Increasingly, the "voided" get out is being employed. Plenty of hits on google.
However, I agree with the rest of your post.
reply to other posts:
Re. other posts which hinge on the "unenforceability" of these restrictions, it is no different to your policy stating that you are the only named driver, or that you and your spouse can drive but not for business, and so on. Insurance companies are not interested in enforcing these restrictions until you make a claim.
So, if they all restrict young drivers (under 21) to, say, carry only passengers who are their immediate relatives, then anyone getting in their car would know that in the event of a claim the insurance company will void the insurance and will not be covering the driver or the "unauthorised" passenger. So you will tell your teenage children not to get in to friend's car if that driver is under 21, won't you?
|
One cannot avoid third party liability although the insurer may retain the right of recovery.
So, if a 17 year old gets in the car of a 19 year old who is not covered for 17 year olds, it'll still get paid.
It is not the same as getting in the car of a 19 year old who is not insured at all.
However, any comprehensive benefits will be avoided and the full costs may be recovered from the driver.
An easier comparison may be that most insurance policies would rely on you not being drunk as a skunk, however if you injured in a car driven by someone who is OTL you may still claim from them.
Reading the actual motor certificate can be informative since it usually indicates the difference between a policy condition and a question of legal coverage.
|
|
I got my first driving lesson 44 years ago in a VW Beetle in Rotterdam (Netherlands) On the third lesson the instructor told me to join the Motorway.I don't follow how anybody can have a full driving licence without driving on a Motorway.Not a bad idea about passenger if it can be enforced.First year after passing the test a green L plate maybe helps.Also learning to drive with somebody without a dual controlled car in todays traffic volume is a no no in my opinion.
|
I don't know how it is today, may be the test and lessons cover more, but the first time I was driving on my own was along the old A33 from Basingstoke to Reading about 6pm on a December, Friday night, pitch black, snowing and very busy - first time for all those conditions for me.
It was a red Toledo, so sorry if you were one of the ones forced to drive at 25mph all the way to Mortimer, but I was scared witless.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 01:01
|
>> It was a red Toledo, so sorry if you were one of the ones forced
>> to drive at 25mph all the way to Mortimer, but I was scared witless.
Wimp, my first drive after passing was along the A3, through central london, and into Ilford
Sorry for all those I terrified.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 01:01
|
John,
The ABI were promoting it but on basis that Ministers move to enact it into law. I suppose they could try and do something similar contractually via policy terms but it might be hard to sell!!
DfT spokesman has since said there are no current plans for legislation.
The kite has been flown and reeled in. Now something less draconian, maybe a curfew, will look reasonable.
|
|
Reasonable, maybe, and unenforceable, like everything else without the manpower.
|
Excuse my ignorance, but when did it become a task of private enterprise (ie insurance companies) to be involved in law enforcement?
I can understand that vehicles have to be insured, but surely the onus is on plod to ensure that said vehicle/driver is insured?
|
|
this has been talked about for 25years, will be very hard to enforce. Could not imagine any new driver heading on to the motorway straight after passing the test, given all the road works , and information to take in.
|
Slight topic drift alert but hey, what do you expect !
Growing up in a large city which also (at the time anyway) had a lot of cyclists, I and my contemporaries were used, from as early as about the age of 9 to cycle around what was even then a fairly busy environment. As a result, we were from that age familiar with such basic concepts as traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, roundabouts, junctions etc and had to, at least know, how to use them and what would be the likely interactions of other road users with them.
I think, or at least I like to think, this stood us in good stead when later in life we began to drive motorised vehicles on those same roads.
Now of course, we don't easily let our children do such things but it was quite normal then. I did a ten mile round trip to and from school ( which was in the city centre ) on my bike from age 9 to 18. Sometimes twice a day. Lots of my friends did too. It was nothing unusual.
|
The Lad and I have just had a run in over this territory.
He'd been down to a mate's house in the village this afternoon with several other 17/18yo young men at 'band practice'. Came back saying he was going with them later in evening to another's house in a village five miles away. How you getting there? says I. Well he replies, Mum won't need the car will she?
Not at all happy to be told we thought carrying four others, some who'd been drinking, around unlit lanes at closing time on a night of frost/fog might be pushing the envelope of his driving experience. I trust him not to drink but a step too far 6 weeks after his test.
After a bit of effin and jeffin the point was seen and one of them's mother is doing taxi duty.
|
If the Minister was serious about reducing road deaths.. which he is but not THAT serious - he would ban the sale and use of motor bikes.
That 362 fatalities stopped at once.. at a stroke. Easy to enforce.
www.bikelawyer.co.uk/bike-accident-statistics
Job done...
|
>> If the Minister was serious about reducing road deaths.. which he is but not THAT
>> serious - he would ban the sale and use of motor bikes.
>>
>> That 362 fatalities stopped at once.. at a stroke. Easy to enforce.
>>
>>
>> www.bikelawyer.co.uk/bike-accident-statistics
>>
>> Job done...
>>
A small fraction of the deaths directly related to alcohol, but unlike motorcycle accidents where almost all the casualties are the riders themselves many innocent people die through the actions of those who can't cope with their drink. Yet we never hear of anyone wanting to ban that little pleasure, presumably because virtually everyone, including the great and good who interfere in our lives indulge themselves.
Take away all life's risks and it would be safer but not worth living.
|
>> Take away all life's risks and it would be safer but not worth living.
Plus 1. The daily Brompton ride in London traffic blows off cobwebs and calibrates my alert state for a day at work.
|
>> A small fraction of the deaths directly related to alcohol, but unlike motorcycle accidents where
>> almost all the casualties are the riders themselves many innocent people die through the actions
>> of those who can't cope with their drink. Yet we never hear of anyone wanting
>> to ban that little pleasure, presumably because virtually everyone, including the great and good who
>> interfere in our lives indulge themselves.
>>
>> Take away all life's risks and it would be safer but not worth living.
Given that alcohol related deaths* is pretty small as a proportion of all deaths, there is no need to ban anything further than currently exists.
* Excluding drunken pedestrians wandering in the road.
|
From the DT today - Zero
