Drivers Today, Do you notice a deterioration in standards? Options

[Wobby]

Actually, what you've said about cyclists is quite topical. I think they are trying to do something aobut it though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/6946834.stm

~Wobby~

[lucky045]

There are many driving insurance companies that cater only to women, because statistics show that women in general make significantly fewer claims than men.

I wouldn't exactly call it discrimination unless you consider paying more for insurance as a young driver agism (because young drivers make more claims,) paying more if you have been in accidents before discrimination, or similar.

[Oddball]

What you've said may be topical, but please don't generalise. It's quite annoying to those of us who do cycle properly on the roads.

Yes there should be tests for cyclists, I feel. I often wince at cyclists going through town, doing things that are just plain dangerous. Cyclists should have more respect for motorists. And vice versa.

[Lixandreth]

I've heard they're thinking of upping the hours spent with an instructor to 120 hours - I don't know how true this is, but if it is, that's an awful lot of money...but then, hopefully it'll raise the standards a bit. Maybe.

I don't think I'd have bothered learning if I'd had to do 120 hours!

[Trebor]

Ah now, there's an interesting one. Minimum driving age. To raise it - or perhaps have the restricted R period extended to 2 or 3 years. I would be in favour of extending it. Also a resit of the exam for current license holders every say 10 years? The car has to be fit for use i.e. MOT, why shouldn't the driver?

I would be very against changing the driving age, even to 18. If we assume that most people take 6-12 months (dunno what the actual stats are, but that's my impression) from first learning to drive to passing their test, it means that even those with late birthdays can generally pass while in Year 13. This means they tend to have more money, they are in one place so can have consistent lessons, and they can drive more around the place where their test'll be. If you change the age to 18, these people will be leaving for uni and it becomes much more difficult to find the time/money to pass. I suppose not everyone goes to uni, but for a considerable proportion of people (including me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) it would be very annoying. And I don't think the added maturity gained between 17 and 18 (or 19 or 20) will have any real effect.

I would support retesting for older drivers. Maybe not every 10 years from when you pass, but perhaps starting from around 60. Some people you see driving wouldn't stand a chance of passing a modern test.

[lucky045]

my grandad never took a real driving test - he learned in the army. His driving is terrifying to say the least.. I'd definitely support retesting for him, and a lot of the other older drivers I've seen.

[Robodoc]

So? If you're going faster than the inside lane, every half minute you have to move to the middle lane, overtake and then move in again. Which is surely much more annoying to everyone than if you stay in the middle lane allowing cars to overtake you on the right, and you to overtake lorries or caravans. I've never seen a situation where a middle-lane "hogger" has caused a particular problem...

So are you saying that the rules of the road should just be ignored if they're not convenient? How very anarchic of you. However, forgive me if I think that laziness is not really a defensibe standpoint. Besides, you're quite right to stay out if you would be overtaking another vehicle immediately or if you are in a separate line of traffic. Common sense is good: Laziness is not.

If you seriously want guidance on this I thouroughly recommend joining your local brach of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

. . . wasn't there a study that showed that 3 out of 4 drivers that had at least 20 years experience driving would fail the driving test if they were to take it again.

If you get caught doing slightly over the speed limit you may get the option of attending a "Speed Awareness Course" instead of being prosecuted: I did (and like everyone else there I was resentful and angry about the entrapment methods we felt had been used, but that is an aside). As part of this course they show you a video taken driving along a local road and ask you to identify any hazards you see. There were 24 of us on the course. The best of us spotted 14. We were then told that the pass mark for the theory driving test is 50% - or 23!

And I'm yet to see a cyclist pulled over by the police.

I was! As a teenager (30 years ago) for cycling along with my hands off the handlebars!

[YetAnotherPianist]

There are many driving insurance companies that cater only to women, because statistics show that women in general make significantly fewer claims than men.

I wouldn't exactly call it discrimination unless you consider paying more for insurance as a young driver agism (because young drivers make more claims,) paying more if you have been in accidents before discrimination, or similar.

Okay, so suppose middle-class white people have fewer car accidents (I don't know if this is the case). Would it be okay if a car insurance company was started which would only insure them, and no-one else?

[Robodoc]

There are many driving insurance companies that cater only to women, because statistics show that women in general make significantly fewer claims than men.

I wouldn't exactly call it discrimination unless you consider paying more for insurance as a young driver agism (because young drivers make more claims,) paying more if you have been in accidents before discrimination, or similar.

Okay, so suppose middle-class white people have fewer car accidents (I don't know if this is the case). Would it be okay if a car insurance company was started which would only insure them, and no-one else?

Of course it wouldn't: Sheilas Wheels is discriminatory if they won't insure you unless you're female (just as surely as a golf club is discrimantory if they won't admit you unless you're male). Once you're in, then it makes sense to insure people at a premium according to their actuarial risk, which takes into account all sorts of factors, including gender, age, history etc.

[YetAnotherPianist]

Okay, so they might insure men, but to quote their website:

'Sheilas' Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to offer women a competitive price'

I wonder if this would spark outrage:

'BNP Insurance is a new car insurance brand designed to offer white British people a competitive price'

I'm not saying this is right, of course, just highlighting the flaws introduced into the risk-sharing model of insurance by encouraging segregation of demographics amongst car insurance companies.

[captaintau]

What you've said may be topical, but please don't generalise. It's quite annoying to those of us who do cycle properly on the roads.

I agree that generalisations are bad. But I'm not generalising. I've held a driving licence now for over ten years. The day I see a cyclist that is riding properly, I'll gladly come and post and here and apologise. As it stands, I'm yet to see a safe cyclist.

Cyclists should have more respect for motorists. And vice versa.

Absolutely. But I can't respect a dangerous, unpredicatable, uncontrolled road user, whatever their mode of transport. FWIW, I'm not a road-rager and I do give cyclists ample space. Now if only they'd learn to signal their intent.....

[Wobby]

Okay, so they might insure men, but to quote their website:

'Sheilas' Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to offer women a competitive price'

I wonder if this would spark outrage:

'BNP Insurance is a new car insurance brand designed to offer white British people a competitive price'

I'm not saying this is right, of course, just highlighting the flaws introduced into the risk-sharing model of insurance by encouraging segregation of demographics amongst car insurance companies.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Exactly. Just as easily, one could look from the negative approach, which essentially is the same thing, in that 'Sheila's Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to force men to pay higher prices than women'. How's that for marketing? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


In a similar argument, there are many places abroad that offer one price for tourists and another for locals. The hapless tourists, unable to understand the language, cannot comprehend what is happening. Actually, I've seen this personally: to get around the system, we went with a speaker of the language, and said very little to pretend we were of the country, and of course got lower prices. However, some may say this is a good way to encourage lazy tourists to learn the language for once! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)


Lastly, going back to the idea of looking over 'competitive quantifying' from the negative, one may easily be drawn to the ideas of 'higher prices at Universities for <insert minority group here> that must compensate for bringing the University down a league', and perhaps the more controversial 'longer sentences in jails for <insert minority group here> because they are more likely to re-offend'. Even if we were to look at the latter idea from the positive, 'shorter sentences in jails for <insert target group here> because they are less likely to re-offend', we can see the flaws of this idea. Going on from this, one may now decide to change the reasoning behind all the positive competitive quantifying, perhaps validly, to 'because this group is more worthy'. And then the problem is clear. Perhaps this is slightly far-fetched, but to allow exemption at all is questionable, surely?


~Wobby~

[lucky045]

Okay, so they might insure men, but to quote their website:

'Sheilas' Wheels is a new car insurance brand designed to offer women a competitive price'

I wonder if this would spark outrage:

'BNP Insurance is a new car insurance brand designed to offer white British people a competitive price'

I'm not saying this is right, of course, just highlighting the flaws introduced into the risk-sharing model of insurance by encouraging segregation of demographics amongst car insurance companies.

I don't like this argument, as it's emotive rather than logical. The idea in this is that anyone who disagrees can automatically be branded racist. I'm not racist/sexist or anything like that. I do, however, think that if someone has never been in a car accident, they shouldn't have to pay as much insurance as someone who has been in multiple car accidents.

Logically it follows that assuming there IS a correlation between gender and likelihood to have an accident, then prices should be adjusted accordingly.

Actually, personally I believe that every case should be taken on individually, rather than relying on generalisations to judge cost, however I can certainly see the logic in the tactics used.

[YetAnotherPianist]

I don't like this argument, as it's emotive rather than logical. The idea in this is that anyone who disagrees can automatically be branded racist. I'm not racist/sexist or anything like that. I do, however, think that if someone has never been in a car accident, they shouldn't have to pay as much insurance as someone who has been in multiple car accidents.

That's interesting; I was merely drawing a discriminatory analogy with which I'm sure people would be familiar. The two statements are direct parallels: one discriminates on the grounds of gender; the other on the grounds of skin colour. Both are banned under employment law because neither is fair. It's interesting, though, in the car insurance case and in general that we can do 'positive discrimination' - we can unfairly favour those who are perceived to be disfavoured elsewhere. Because of the history regarding women not having equal rights, it is seen as okay to bias in their favour; the other way round, though, would be non-PC. Similarly, if an insurer offered discounts to non-white people, that would be fine too; but the other way round, not so.

Logically it follows that assuming there IS a correlation between gender and likelihood to have an accident, then prices should be adjusted accordingly.

Yes, and conventional insurers do this. However, suppose women were more risky drivers and insurers were set up for men only - what would the reaction be then?

Actually, personally I believe that every case should be taken on individually, rather than relying on generalisations to judge cost, however I can certainly see the logic in the tactics used.

Yes, I'm 24 and drive a modest family hatchback in a manner befitting a sensible middle-aged man - don't speed, don't nip out unnecessarily, don't overtake going around blind bends etc. However, even with 4 years' no claims, I still pay the same as others in my age group who drive very differently to me. Actually, that's not quite fair - I got a discount last year for being a Research Fellow rather than a student (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif). Next year I'll get married, which apparently will make me a safer driver too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif).

[Aquarelle]

I would support retesting for older drivers. Maybe not every 10 years from when you pass, but perhaps starting from around 60. Some people you see driving wouldn't stand a chance of passing a modern test.

The idea of retesting older drivers has been thrown out in France for the following reasons:
1) It would be too costly for the government
2) The cost would be out of the reach of people on low pensions.
3) The older members of the population are statistically those who have least accidents.
4) Older people have many years of driving experience which compensate for not having passed a modern test. They have grown up with the road.
5) In rural society it is absolutely essential for older people to be mobile. Many people are several kilometres from the nearest shops. The non mobility of older people would be an economic disaster.
(Just to add a personal touch, I am over 60, still working, have to drive 4 kilometres to school and much further for shopping and there is absolutely no public transport any where near.)
6) Many older people lead quieter lives do not need to drive long distances on motorways or in heavy
traffic and voluntarily limit their night driving.
7) Refresher courses are available for those who can afford them.

There were other reasons but I can’t remember them all.

Every now and again an older person has a spectacular accident and the press try to drag up the arguments again. Every now and again an under- twenty five also has a spectacular accident and similar arguments come up – raise the driving age, limit the power of the engine, retest them
three years consecutively etc. etc.

I think at both ends of the age range - and in the middle - there are plenty or responsible drivers – otherwise, judging by the number of people on the road, the accident figures would be much higher.
I also think there are plenty or irresponsible over sixties and under twenty-fives - and “middle agers”.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with age. I also think that although we should all do every thing in our power to behave responsibly on the road it is sheer pie in the sky to imagine that an activity such as driving (or indeed living!) can ever be totally accident free;