JohnGalway Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Volvo drivers should be shot on sight. No one of sound mind could possibly argue with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Monetary wise,i would think insurance companys pay out more for oap crashes than young drivers.If you think about all the dings that happen in supermarket car parks etc.I once sat and watched an old lady hit 3 cars while trying to pull out of a parking space to then drive off oblivious that she had done anything!! the old lady having a ding on a carpark will cost a few hundred quid to repair. the 17yr old in his dads fastback impacting several other cars at 70 mph will be far more costly. insurance companies charge young drivers hundreds or even thousands of pounds extra for a good reason , it's younger drivers that cause costly(speed related) accidents I agree that the 17 year olds crash will be far more spectacular and costly but on the other hand he wont go out the next day and do it again will he? Where as the old biddy in the metro probably hits 40-50 cars a year(yes she was that bad).So lets say she is paying £300 a year insurance yet costing other insurance companies £10,000 a year in claims.The young drivers are fleeced by insurance companies,some of them paying thousands of pounds to drive crappy little cars but at least they are paying for their poor driving.The rest of us are paying for the little old biddies poor driving by higher premiums for us to cover her accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russuk Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Every age range has bad drivers. Your young *** in his Nova, your annoying motorway dwelling rep in his Vectra, and your doddering old chap in his Rover 214. The one thing that does scare/annoy me more than anything is the complete oblivious nature of the doddering old man to anything else on the road apart from the two metres of road ahead, and to any of the dangerous mistakes they make. You've also got the fact that boy racer barry and his ilk have the ability and chance to become a good driver with experience. Mr Miggins hasn't. He's going to drive like that until he finally passes away at the wheel killing a pack of girl guides selling cookies for the local charity. *tin hat*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_colt Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Those who think the minimum driving age limit needs to be raised need a reality check. In the US the driving age is 16 in most states, far fewer accidents as having a driving license is essential to be able to even attend school over there these days. The standard of education in US driving schools is far higher and churns out many responsible drivers. Raising the driving age will only increase problems for young people in rural areas and could easily prevent access to education and employment. I learnt a long time ago that rural public transport is so bad we may as well scrap it to save cash. It is also quite possible for young people to have physical disabilities too; though it is a fact people tend to overlook when it suits their arguements. I have to be able to drive to attend university next year, period. There is no other means of transportation avalaible. Therefore I see no merit in increasing the driving age. Given the enormous accident rate fall after new drivers do a pass-plus; I think it should be incorporated into the driving test and Government subsidised. It would slash our accident rates like has been never seen. I also think the alcohol limit should be change to an absolute zero for ALL drivers. No if's, no buts. mr_colt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie 1 Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Those who think the minimum driving age limit needs to be raised need a reality check. In the US the driving age is 16 in most states, far fewer accidents as having a driving license is essential to be able to evena attend school over thre these days. The standard of education in US driving schools is far higher and churns out many responsible drivers. Raising the driving age will only increase problems for young people in rural areas and could easily prevent access to education and employment. I learnt a long time ago that rural public transport is so bad we may as well scrap it to save cash. It is also quite possible for young people to have physical disabilities too; though it is a fact people tend to overlook when it suits their arguements. I have to be able to drive to attend university next year, period. There is no other means of transportation avalaible. Therefore I see no merit in increasing the driving age. Given the enormous accident rate fall after new drivers do a pass-plus; I think it should be incorporated into the driving test and Government subsidised. It would slash our accident rates like has been never seen. I also think the alcohol limit should be change to an absolute zero for ALL drivers. No if's, no buts. mr_colt. I agree with the above. i don't think that increasing the minimum age limit will help. i think that making the tests harder will make a bigger difference and on the topic of the maximum age limit i think that when you get to 60 you should have to do a retest every 5 years just to make sure that you can drive safly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.