So there's talk of trying to change the UK driving licence to a more graduated system, as used in some places in the world.

Information here: http://www.brake.org.uk/graduated-licensing

Source article: http://www.confused.com/featur ... 23May&utm_content=May

I'll not paste the bullet point changes here as some of them do make more sense if you read the explanations in full, so please take a moment to read it all before letting rageful opinions fly out of your fingers.

==============================================

My opinion, I very much like the concept in general, and think the system here in general is not up to scratch and can be easily mis-used. I'll happily admit I was a poor driver for my about first year (and despite passing at 18, I was 23 by the time I bought a car), there is clearly no substitute for sufficient experience.

I do think some of the suggested changes have issues though:

A) One year of driving before you can take the theory and hazard perception test? Sorry but it's crap we can even take to the roads before we potentially even know what any of the signs mean. I say the theory tests should be passed before you can even apply for a provisional driving licence.

B) Don't see the point of mandating professional tuition. Someone who has never driven before is going to be bad no matter who is telling them what they're doing wrong.

C) What does an accompanying driver need to be registered for? Exactly what would make someone unsuitable? And that still doesn't stop the observer from being under the influence, which makes anyone unsuitable.

D) The novice driver night time curfew. I think this is overkill. I think the Californian system of just requiring an older supervisor is sufficient.

E) No driving on motorways. This is senseless. They're easy, safe, time saving, and how are you ever supposed to know how to use them without driving on them? Maybe require supervision but don't even think that is necessary.

F) Engine size restriction. Good idea, poorly executed. A 900cc bike engined Caterham will piss all over a 2.2 litre van. Limit by power to weight.

G) Second driving test - best idea. Personally I'd like to see continuous re-tests as being mandatory for all ages, although only once per decade. Bad habits form and you need to be checked on so you can correct your driving errs before you become a danger.

What are your thoughts?

We have it here in BC.

1 year of an "Learner" stage. You pass a practical test and then can drive. You need to drive however with a driver with an existing FULL licence (Class 5), and over the age of 25. 1 additional passenger maximum (supervisor plus 1). Midnight to 6 AM curfew.

After your year in the "L" stage, you then take a road test. Upon passing this, you are granted a "Novice" licence. This allows you to drive alone, with 1 passenger. No curfew which I personally think is stupid, I think that as an N, there should be a 2 to 6 AM curfew, as that'd eliminate the N drivers that are of age, but drunk driving home.. or at least have that curfew to give cops grounds to pull a driver over to check if they are drinking.. people on decent business just get let go without a ticket.

The exception to this is family members are exempt from this count, along with if you have a supervisor (Over 25 and full licence), you are allowed as many non-family members as you have seatbelts for.

After 2 years (18 months with approved driver training) of your Novice stage, you then have a second road test. Upon completing this you are granted your full, class 5 licence.

Of course, when you're in your novice stage, you have much less freedom. 4 points on your license = suspended license. No use of hands-free devices. Cops tend to pull you over just to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Zero tolerance for alcohol (versus the .05 I believe with your Class 5 license.)

I think it is good as it does ease you into driving. However having an irresponsible/careless supervisor in your L stage will teach you bad habits.. where you will then fail your first road test.

Looking at BCAA (BC Auto Associantion), GLP did reduce accident rates upon its implementation as well.

we have something similar in ontario too...

g1 - written multiple choice test, can't drive without a licensed passenger, can't drive on the major highways, no booze, can't take g2 for a year
g2 - simple road test, no booze, can't drive with a full car at night, can't take full g for a year
full g - highway road test, under 25 no booze still, over 80 have to take a vision test and get that same test every 2 years

Quote :

• The learner’s licence should not be fully valid until the learner driver has received a minimum of 10 hours’ professional tuition in a car with dual controls.

we don't require that, and i think it's rather silly. on the other hand, g1 drivers who do take driving school can take their g2 test some months early, and they get a break on their insurance.

I'm all for it, if all other drivers on the road are ALSO forced to pass the same tests...

Quote from Jakg :

I'm all for it, if all other drivers on the road are ALSO forced to pass the same tests...

yeah, that's a problem... immigrants with licences from another country are automatically given licences here...

add to that the grandfathering of the old system, which means you can be a blind old dingbat and nothing will happen to you until you get pulled over for running over that playground of kids...

Yeah. Jack could wander over to BC, surrender his license, and get a full blown class 5 licence with a simple eye test.

The problem is people consider driving to be a right and not the serious task it is. When you consider it is harder to get a license to use a chainsaw commercially than it is to drive a 2ton missile you know something is wrong with the system.

I am off the belief that if you're not interested in something you cannot do it well. I have no interest in football, so am rubbish at it. The same applies for driving.

I think you're wrong. I have no interest in Hockey, yet I can play hockey rather well.

I suspect you get schooled e erytime you enter the ice with someone who actually likes the sport, I also suspect they know all of the rules, rather than just knocking a puck into the net for 10 minutes then going home.

Plus you're a snowback, it is in your genes to play hockey in the same way it is in a German's nature to invade Poland.

Unfortunately you're still wrong. I do know all the rules of hockey (I referee it remember.)

I don't get schooled either, it's a shame that I'm quite naturally at least a bit athletically blessed.

If you referee it then you clearly have an interest in the sport you daft ****.

You're the worst troll around.

No. I actually don't have an interest in the sport whatsoever. I'm a good official, so why not referee? I understand the sport, but I don't follow it. If you asked me who was playing in the Stanley Bowl or whatever., I couldn't tell you.

Hell, I would be happy with anything other then the NY state exam for driving. Most drivers around here are, well, shit.

Isn't the NY test just "Are you Italian? Ok sir.. here's your license!"

It varies here, some places it can be difficult and others is a piece of cake.

The written portion of the test was simple, common sense stuff for driving. The driving portion was even better, as it consisted of driving in a parking lot for 5 minutes.

It's all a good idea, other than the lack of motorway driving - I do agree that recently-passed drivers shouldn't be allowed on motorways until they have had motorway-based lessons, however.

So, let novices take their test within 2 years of passing the learner test: two years of no motorway driving is far too long.

Brake are a bunch of arseholes and should never be taken seriously.

Quote from bunder9999 :

yeah, that's a problem... immigrants with licences from another country are automatically given licences here...

This is not true, except for a handful of countries like USA, Germany etc. with exchange agreements. E.g. even though I had almost 10 years of experience and a valid Cro license, I still had to take the written and road tests to get the Canadian driver license, it wasn't automatically given to me. It's juts that the waiting period is waived, so instead of waiting 1 year to take full G test, you can schedule it right away. You still have to take the tests though, and you have to prove that you have 2x the time required in Canada, so it was 4 years for full G (normal graduated licenses period is 2 years I think).

Australia does it, it works.....lol jks P platers are the biggest statistic on the road toll.

The new laws say to even go for your P plates you need 120 hour of driving in every weather and time of day but everyone knows that people lie on half of those. And that as soon as you let a 18 year old alone with a car they will speed and feel that its there god given right to be on the road with little regard to anyone else.

My opinion atleast to really change them you need to target the age group and change there mentality to appreciate and not take it for granted ect.

Of course people lie.. I doubt Australians have a tonne of snow driving experience.

Quote from Mp3 Astra :

So, let novices take their test within 2 years of passing the learner test: two years of no motorway driving is far too long.

The longer you leave it the more nervous of motorway driving you'll become. My mother put it off for so long now she will detour for miles to avoid them, she has tried taking tuition on it but is still too scared to use them. In contrast, the same day I passed I had to use the M-Way, so it doesn't phase me, I've done pass plus, but that was just for insurance reasons. My sister also made sure to use the M-Way the day she passed and is perfectly happy using them.

But I know a lot of other people who avoided the M-Way after passing and are still nervous to this day when using them. So jump early before the fear or doubt from others about your ability to handle them grows.

Quote from AutoPilot :

This is not true, except for a handful of countries like USA, Germany etc. with exchange agreements. E.g. even though I had almost 10 years of experience and a valid Cro license, I still had to take the written and road tests to get the Canadian driver license, it wasn't automatically given to me. It's juts that the waiting period is waived, so instead of waiting 1 year to take full G test, you can schedule it right away. You still have to take the tests though, and you have to prove that you have 2x the time required in Canada, so it was 4 years for full G (normal graduated licenses period is 2 years I think).

when was this? maybe they changed the system recently, but i don't believe so...

you should see how people drive in my city... it's part of the reason why i walk...

i had some rant to go with this, but i deleted it on the basis that i don't want to come off as some racist jerkwad.

Interesting to note they recommend an extra 10 hours of pro training.

100,000 new drivers each year
10 hours extra training
£30 an hour
Value = £30,000,000

Wonder who recommended that part?

Certainly there is a problem with a large percentage of young male drivers, but I can't see where it recognises those drivers who despite this apparent 'lack of experience' drive exceptionally well. Why should they be penalised?

I'd like to know the types of accidents as well. if a large percentage of them is young male drivers going to fast, than no amount of GPL system is going to stop it.

There would probably be less accidents involving young male drivers if older male and female drivers used their indicators and mirrors properly, and used the "mirror, signal, manoeuvre" technique rather than the prevalent "manoeuvre" technique.

Re-test everyone every 15 or 20 years. Above the age of 50, when reactions, eyesight, and the natural urge to drive at a dangerously low speed becomes too great, this should be changed to every 5 or 10 years.

Drivers should be banned for being too hesitant, slow, stupid or dim-witted, regardless of age. Drivers should also be banned for going too fast, but this should not be judged by their speed versus some arbitrary speed limit that doesn't take into account the car, the conditions, the number of pedestrians, the traffic load, the location, the presence of traffic wombles, the time of day etc, but by some clever way of doing it.

Anyone that claims to be an "Advanced Driver", even (especially?) if they have a certificate to say so, or someone who suggests that steering should be shuffled or that the only way to slow a car down is via the brakes should be banned indefinitely.

Anyone who never revs an engine high enough, and hence has water pouring out of their exhaust, should be forced at gun point to drive a 30 mile route on a public road at an average speed of over 50mph. The route will have slow twisty bits, junctions, and fast open bits, so that the driver will have to rev the car and reach speeds in excess of 60mph for extended periods of time. Anyone not capable or confident in doing this will be forced to sell their car and give the proceeds to charity.


I'm not telling you which of the above are purely attempts at humour (even if they are bad attempts), which are ones I strongly agree with, and which are a mixture.

Seems like mostly sensible suggestions, apart from the motorway restriction.