Power restriction for new drivers?

KamiKazi

Theta wrote: »

So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

Its better to train someone correctly from the start.

Exactly.

bladespin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It wouldn't be the only step I would take. I would couple it with a proper testing center which would require things like skid testing, emergency stops from speed and motorway driving tests.

Nearly everybody I know who drives bikes has had both the restrictor and advanced lessons outside of their license. I don't know any car drivers who have had any lessons outside of their test.

TBH I done my test on a full power Gsxr7/11 without lessons the first time.

Do you really think that reducing the acceleration of the car an aggressive driver uses will make them safer?

That was the assumption when they introduced the restriction to the motorcycles but I don't recall it working out that way.

I'd imagine it'd make them twice as bad, like young lads riding 125s (berore the 33bhp thing) every overtake was do or die.

daveharnett

KamiKazi wrote: »

Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?

Seems ok to me tbh.
Power isn't an issue in the vast majority of cases - it's excessive speed rather than acceleration that causes the 'going too fast' type of crash.

So, looking at the small percentage where power is a factor: accelerating too quickly is much more likely to stuff a bike than a car.
- Cars don't fall over.
- Cars have nowhere near the same power/weight ratio.
- Most cars here are FWD and will tend to understeer under acceleration - very easy to correct.
- All high-powered RWD cars sold here in the last 15 years have driver aids to combat throttle-induced oversteer.

ART6

Theta wrote: »

So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

Its better to train someone correctly from the start.

Entirely true, but having been young once, when I passed my test I was quite satisfied that I was an expert driver and didn't need any lecturing about how to drive. It needed a tree that wouldn't get out of the way to teach me how wrong I was.

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

If nothing else it would warn the rest of us who to keep the feck out of the way of:D

KamiKazi

ART6 wrote: »

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

Or we could give L plates back to our nanny state neighbours and just train new drivers properly.

Theta

ART6 wrote: »

Entirely true, but having been young once, when I passed my test I was quite satisfied that I was an expert driver and didn't need any lecturing about how to drive. It needed a tree that wouldn't get out of the way to teach me how wrong I was.

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

If nothing else it would warn the rest of us who to keep the feck out of the way of:D

They use a similar system in the UK or is it the IOM where you use R plates for the first year after passing your test?

Max Power1

Theta wrote: »

They use a similar system in the UK or is it the IOM where you use R plates for the first year after passing your test?

Its in the UK AFAIK

(not sure if the comment was sarcastic, its dificult to tell with written text)

Theta

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its in the UK AFAIK

(not sure if the comment was sarcastic, its dificult to tell with written text)

No it was a question sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

bladespin

If we're going to copy any of our neighbours systems then we really should look a little further and have a set-up like Germany or the US where a genuine driver school is employed. Germany especially has a terrific training method, it's expensive but seems to produce the goods.

Joe 90

daveharnett wrote: »

- All high-powered RWD cars sold here in the last 15 years have driver aids to combat throttle-induced oversteer.

Wanna Bet?

ART6

bladespin wrote: »

If we're going to copy any of our neighbours systems then we really should look a little further and have a set-up like Germany or the US where a genuine driver school is employed. Germany especially has a terrific training method, it's expensive but seems to produce the goods.

I would agree that a proper driving school should be employed. In fact I'd be inclined to take it further. I would regulate all driving schools and regularly inspect them. Then I would require that anyone learning to drive must take lessons from the schools, who would evaluate their progress and only approve them for a full licence when satisfied with their competence. No formal driving test with a government examiner because that is a one-off thing that only shows that the learner was able to drive around a predetermined road network for a short time without hitting anything and could pass the written test. That would save public money and the examiners could go and get jobs with driving schools.

OK. Expensive. But anyone who can afford to buy and insure a car should also be able to afford proper lessons. It might even lead to a reduction of insurance premiums for the rest of us.

metzengerstein

ART6 wrote: »

I would agree that a proper driving school should be employed. In fact I'd be inclined to take it further. I would regulate all driving schools and regularly inspect them. Then I would require that anyone learning to drive must take lessons from the schools, who would evaluate their progress and only approve them for a full licence when satisfied with their competence. No formal driving test with a government examiner because that is a one-off thing that only shows that the learner was able to drive around a predetermined road network for a short time without hitting anything and could pass the written test. That would save public money and the examiners could go and get jobs with driving schools.

OK. Expensive. But anyone who can afford to buy and insure a car should also be able to afford proper lessons. It might even lead to a reduction of insurance premiums for the rest of us.

things like this you would have thought would have been put in place along time ago ,the government are too busy calculating the stats thnking this might stop the speeders instead of trying to actually help the situation.it should be taught in schools like in america ,or even the above comment should be put in place

daveharnett

Joe 90 wrote: »

Wanna Bet?

Not really . I take it that you drive an exception?
Probably should have gone with "the vast majority".

daveharnett

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Funnily enough I drove a mid 00`s Porsche 911 that didnt have any form of traction control.

I thought about the 911, but afaik the models without TC are primarily intended for trackdays?

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

KamiKazi wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of all restrictions for motorcyclists abolished?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did I say that?

KamiKazi wrote: »

Well your argument is that you can still kill yourself regardless of engine size no?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Even if you put a restrictor on a car it will limit its acceleration, but if you fire you car into a tree a 60mph or a ditch at high speed it doesnt really matter if the car had a restrictor or not. Its not acceleration thats killing all the young drivers its over confidence something no technical device will limit.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Funnily enough I drove a mid 00`s Porsche 911 that didnt have any form of traction control.

LIGHTNING - the question remains unanswered.

MetzgerMeister

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If you have the money to buy a Enzo you have the money to get insured on it.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Three letters of refusal.
Hello Mr. Ombudsman.
Enjoy your Enzo.

Good points. I stand corrected

Shane Slv

Well iam a newish driver (full licence) Started out driving my dads 1.6 petrol and now have my own car a 1.3 petrol and i honestly feel much safer in a car with more power. Not just for overtaking but for everyday stuff like building up speed joining a motorway.

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont think they will be of any use so I would say no to power restrictrions.

So you do NOT agree with the power restrictions imposed on motorcycle riders for the first two years after passing their test?

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I was talking about cars, this is the motoring forum not the motorbikes forum. I couldnt care what rules/restritctions are applied to Bikers (no offense to Bikers).

This is the Motors section of the motoring forum.
Last time I checked, motobikes had motors.

The original question was about cars 'in relation' to motorbikes.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Thought I'd stick up a thread to see what the general consensus is on new drivers and what cars they can drive.

As it stands, there are no limitations on what a car driver can drive; anyone can pass the theory test, apply for the learners permit and hop into a Ferrari Enzo. They'll pay through the nose, but they won't be breaking any laws.

Some of you may know from past posts of mine in here that I'm a motorcylcist. So I'll be using motorcycle legislation as an example. Motorcyclists on their learners permit are not allowed to be on a bike with a power output greater than 33HP, there's also a clause to rule out really light bikes under the 33HP limit. This also applies to riders for the first two years from the day they pass their driving test.

So while a newbie biker is stuck on a bike that would struggle to outrun most cars of 1.6L and above for at least 30 months, any learner driver can get into a 400BHP car no problem. Now I don't think anyone will disagree that bikes are more dangerous and harder to control but when a fast car goes out of control it's a lot bigger and heavier and will do an awful lot more damage.

Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?

Donnelly117

I think that restriction on a bike is more important as you can buy an extremely fast bike relativity cheap but a fast car is too expensive for new drivers to afford (running cost, tax, petrol, insurance). Also an insurance company will give a new driver a quote so high on a fast car they wont be able to afford it.

shamrock105

Max Power1 wrote: »

There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

I got insured on my own policy on a 1.4 with a learner permit for €1400 with no prior experience.

P.C.

Donnelly117 wrote: »

I think that restriction on a bike is more important as you can buy an extremely fast bike relativity cheap but a fast car is too expensive for new drivers to afford (running cost, tax, petrol, insurance). Also an insurance company will give a new driver a quote so high on a fast car they wont be able to afford it.

I have been driving cars and trucks for years.
Just because I have recenty started biking, I am limited to 25KW/33BHP. :eek::mad:

I could buy and insure any car I want - I have many, many years NCB on my car insurance.

Insurance on the bike is not the problem.
It is the silly restriction that is the problem.

Oh, and running cost on a bike are not nearly as cheap as you think - my bike costs me way more to maintain than my car.

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

To which I made my feeling quite clear, then I got asked about bikes and I replied that I have no interest in Bikes. Motorbikes also have tyres will I post a question about car tyres in the Motorbikes forum?

I am glad you feel that you made yourself quite clear, because I am still confused as to your postion on restriction on bikes.

Saying you do not care about bikes is not making yourself clear - it is a cop-out.

If you do not want to answer the question, then say so, but you posted stuff about a restriction not doing any good, then shy away from saying whether you agree or disagree with them.

Do you agree with restrictions on motorbike riders? Yes or no?

Cuddlesworth

LIGHTNING wrote: »

To which I made my feeling quite clear, then I got asked about bikes and I replied that I have no interest in Bikes. Motorbikes also have tyres will I post a question about car tyres in the Motorbikes forum?

I'll try to answer my best.

KamiKazi

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'll try to answer my best.

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

I am glad you feel that you made yourself quite clear, because I am still confused as to your postion on restriction on bikes.

Saying you do not care about bikes is not making yourself clear - it is a cop-out.

If you do not want to answer the question, then say so, but you posted stuff about a restriction not doing any good, then shy away from saying whether you agree or disagree with them.

Do you agree with restrictions on motorbike riders? Yes or no?

Saying he doesn't care about bikes is very clear.

After reading the posts you are having issue with I dont see where he is talking about motorbikes, he is quite clearly talking about motorcars. The fact it his post came in between posts about bikes may be where you got confused, but I ignored them because im not too bothered about bikes and it makes sense to me. Its just missing a quote box.

Anyway, its a position I agree with, in some attempt of getting back on topic its not the approach to take to try and make things safer.
For me its bad driving technique that is the problem.
Bad driving technique isn't going to be solved by a slower car, its just going to be made slower

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Well we are getting off topic but if you re-read my posts I make myself quite clear on the issue. I dont think they will make a difference if put on a car and I dont think they should be installed in L drivers cars.

As for bikes issue. I have insufficient knowledge of bikes (let alone the interest) to form a opinion about restrictors on bikes.

Still not clear to me, and still no answer to the question.

But, you have made yourself clear in one respect.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

KamiKazi wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of all restrictions for motorcyclists abolished?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did I say that?

KamiKazi wrote: »

Well your argument is that you can still kill yourself regardless of engine size no?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Even if you put a restrictor on a car it will limit its acceleration, but if you fire you car into a tree a 60mph or a ditch at high speed it doesnt really matter if the car had a restrictor or not. Its not acceleration thats killing all the young drivers its over confidence something no technical device will limit.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont think they will be of any use so I would say no to power restrictrions.

P.C. wrote: »

So you do NOT agree with the power restrictions imposed on motorcycle riders for the first two years after passing their test?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I was talking about cars, this is the motoring forum not the motorbikes forum. I couldnt care what rules/restritctions are applied to Bikers (no offense to Bikers).

P.C. wrote: »

This is the Motors section of the motoring forum.
Last time I checked, motobikes had motors.

The original question was about cars 'in relation' to motorbikes.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

To which I made my feeling quite clear, then I got asked about bikes and I replied that I have no interest in Bikes. Motorbikes also have tyres will I post a question about car tyres in the Motorbikes forum?

It seems to me that people think it is OK to have one law for cars drivers, and a different law for bikes riders.

evolutionqy7

dont agree with restrictions...you can drive any car and kill yourself...what d diff if its a 6L or a 1L

challengemaster

KamiKazi wrote: »

It should be the Government, no?

The government? Really? Don't you think they already have enough say in things? The people who couldn't handle a pair of tits if they were put infront of their noses? Take a look at the roads you drive on every day. Now, re-think putting the govt. in charge of things...

LIGHTNING wrote:

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

hmm....lawnmower has 13hp, can't really kill yourself though, damn thing has a fail-safe seat :pac:

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

It seems to me that people think it is OK to have one law for cars drivers, and a different law for bikes riders.

How can someone who only drives a car have any credible opinion on what legislation is in place for bikers? Aside of course of the legislation that can effect car drivers in some way, I think bikes have to have lights on as an example.

I say that because, he hasn't given any opinion on what legislation should be in place with bikers with regards to bikers nor did he intend to. I dont see why you are getting yourself in a twist about it.