posted 3 years ago

No Full Driving Licence Until 19?

Government Considers Tough Rules To Restrict New Drivers

The Government is considering preventing motorists holding a full licence prior to nineteen, the BBC has reported. This proposal – that comes via a Transport Research Laboratory report - could soon form part of a radical set of new rules. If implemented, drivers would continue to learn from seventeen but not take the practical test before eighteen. As things stand, learners can sit the practical whenever they feel ready (subject to having passed the theory exam). Furthermore, within the learning period motorists would have to accumulate one-hundred and twenty hours of supervised tuition, including twenty in the dark. There is currently no minimum time commitment. After passing the test, they would be “on probation” for twelve months during which their cars would wear “p” plates. Within this time, motorists aged less than thirty would not be allowed to have passengers under thirty or drive without supervision between 10PM and 5AM. New drivers – irrespective of age – would also face a lower drink-drive limit than experienced motorists, night restrictions, and be banned from using a hands-free phone. They would then satisfy various landmarks to remove the restrictions.

New Driver Accident Rates

The Government is considering these proposals as inexperienced drivers – particularly youngsters – account for an alarming number of incidents. In fact, the Transport Research Laboratory report claimed that nearly twenty-five percent of accidents that led to death or serious injury last year involved drivers under twenty-four. Furthermore, a Government spokesman has revealed that whereas youngsters only account for approximately five percent of the country's total mileage, they are involved with twenty percent of serious accidents. The report also suggested that a graduated licence system – of which similar schemes operate in Canada and The United States of America - could cut the number of people killed or injured by nearly four-thousand five-hundred per-year. Brake – a road safety charity – added that a night time curfew has cut serious accidents involving youngsters by fifty-nine percent in Washington U.S.A. But such proposals have their critics. The AA President Edmund King therefore argued that: “this report could be seen as just recommending taking novice drivers off the road by regulation and restriction rather than helping them develop the right attitudes and skills”. Furthermore, these limitations could make it harder for motorists – particularly those that live in the country - to find work and travel to college. We watch with interest. 


NOOO! Do they want more people to go jobless by not being able to get around until AFTER 19!? Surely there'd be a higher percentage of crashes when people are urgently trying to make up for all the time that they've lost with work experience.

A far cry from Mr Cameron's stance before he got into office, i.e. he wanted to end the war on motorists. These proposals just add to the real problems this age group have in getting jobs. Heart Disease, Diabetes & Sepsis all claim a lot more lives, concentrate on these Mr Cameron!

I think some of these rules is wrong im currently learning to drive as i have children im 27 and think the rule about not bn able to drive after ten is wrong. there could be a number of reasons i would need to be out after ten and i woild have my children with me...

I believe the way it happens in Hungary. First you learn to drive a car off the public road, so full control established, then learn the technical of the car engine end other parts. Then Pass the theory, that is all road signs, before aloud to enter the public highway with a competent instructor. After passing your test, for one year carry a (P) on the vehicle, also the test determents how powerful vehicle you are aloud to drive.

My daughter has just passed her test - 3 months before her 18th birthday. In order that she wouldn't lose her new skill, I downsized my car to a 1.2 in order that she would have access to driving. She takes the car to her work which is an evening job, as we will not allow her to get in a taxi on her own. Occasionally she takes our 16 year old son who works in the same place. I can assure you that she is a competent, careful driver who wouldn't do anything to jeopardise losing her licence - it cost a lot of money to get her through her test, and to put her on my car's insurance. Why tar all young/new drivers with the same brush? I have come across some middle aged boy/girl racers and some elderly people who should definitely not be on the road - why are they not picked on?

some of the points i can see the reasoning behind ,but how is the 120 hours supervised driving going to be done . if it has to be with an instructor ,young people will never be able to afford this on top of the licencefee lessons ,theory test and main test . thats without buying car and insurance . surely this will just encourage more young uninsured drivers and punish the ones who abide by the law

sir, suggestion which nobody has yet covered , it is possible to buy a 100mph car for a few hundred pounds (EVEN IF NOT INSURED) so why not restrict the type of car for a couple of years until more cable of handling power ? it worked for motor cycles so WHY NOT CARS!

Ridiculous how would this be policed. The police have enough to do already with the government cut backs. Why not make the youg driver drive a car 1000cc or less. In my view less power less risk.And also get rid of the large speaker's so they can actually hear and be aware of their surroundings.

A graduated licence system sounds good and it should have been implemented many years ago but as presented in some respects it is too dogmatic and inflexible and in other respects it doesn't go far enough. If it was introduced as part of a comprehensive integrated mass transport system then it would be a good idea to make twenty-one the age when a full licence is finally achieved. Again the government is guilty of blinkered vision even over the small assumption of believing every kid has a responsible family member who would dedicate 120 hours to supervise the young drivers and meanwhile the youngsters still need to go to work, college and university. I predict the sale of two-wheelers will increase and the three-wheeled vehicle could again become popular. Typical of the government to cherry-pick. In the U.S., Canada and I believe in France driving begins at earlier ages altogether. That might not be as bad in practice as it first seems but my father maintained such moves by the government aren't designed for road safety as much as for preventing the plebs cluttering up the roads so the Tory Rolls-Royces have more room. Bad behaviour on our roads is merely a reflection of the bad behaviour in our society. Better manners both on and off the road would increase life expectancy a great deal as would compulsory re-testing every ten years and severe restrictions over the power to weight ratio of vehicles a person is allowed to drive. A person should need an advanced driving qualification to drive a vehicle with a greater power to weight ratio than about 80 bhp per ton and a further higher qualification for those in the supercar class.

i agree that this needto looked into because some young drives show off when they have past their test and are in the top bracket of high risk accidents but 120 hours supervised really how on earth can they afford that most hrs lesson are in the region of 40 pounds an hour so again unless you been born in to a rich family the youngesters wont be able to afford it with all the other cost of living going sky high

No need to change the start age but no passengers under 21 till driver is 21 would stop the braggers. Why not test everyone every five years? That would largely get rid of the problem generated by age and/or incompetence as well.

Absolutely outrageous! As always, the faults of the few make everybody else suffer! I passed my test 30 days after my 17th birthday after 20 or so hours of lessons and 18 years on, I have never had an accident or any fines or points on my licence. I was regularly the nominated driver on nights out clubbing at 18 or 19 and my friends bought me soft drinks and I gave them lifts home late at night. I wore p plates on my car which I agree is a good idea, as is a lower, or zero, alcohol limit, but as for giving young people a blanket curfew or to dictate how many hours of lessons everyone must have when every person is different, the idea is ridiculous. What is someone under 30 going to do if their child is sick in the night or has an accident? Wait till they can find a chaperone before driving their sick kid to hospital? What about people who have to work late one night. Sorry, you can't drive your car home tonight, it's half past ten! Yes, lots of young people have accidents, many more have never had one. Sorry, but in my opinion, the 'boy racers' of the world are ruining things for safe young drivers!

Any way to stop young people from killing themselves and others can't be bad idea

So what about the middle aged men an women having a midlife crisis who buy Subarus an the likes an fly around like mad fools over taking anyone doing the speed limit or fail to indicate at junctions coz they feel they don't need to... An business people driving on there phones.

Here on the Isle of Man 16 is the age limit although these days newly qualified have to drive on a R - plate for a year and are limited to 50mph. Not a problem on country roads.

My son is 18 and works as a waiter. He finishes between midnight and 2am. This is ridiculous to stop him from working.

I think its a great idea getting all these waste of space off the road but they should really change it to 21 to slow down our roads. Roads are get far to busy. It use to take me just over 5mins to get to work a few years back now it take 15-20mins to do the same route to and from work. So bring it on and change it to 21.

Another Nail in the lid of so called British freedom,bit by bit its taken away, and the people are to stupid or to lazy(I'm ok jack syndrome) to do anything about it,Police state,were pleased to announce its all going to plan....

The average cost of a driving lesson (1hr) is around £20, Are they expecting you to have 120 hours of lessons £2400! F**k That

Reading the above article and all the comments before this, makes me think, if as the statistics state inexperienced drivers are the worse, why not keep the age the same, but apply the following restrictions: * Restrict BOTH the engine size & power (remember you can turbo-charge a 1L car to have greater performance than a 1.6L) * Enforce the "P" plate system for 2 yrs after passing. Any at fault accident or conviction results in return to "L" status. * Statutory night driving to be certified before taking test. * No hands free while on "P" * MAKE THE TEST MUCH HARDER * Possibly while on "P" status statutory professional motorway driving. * most important is for ALL drivers of all ages & experience (learners & qualified drivers of many years) - an effective zero alcohol limit.

All this will do is postpone the problem for two years. Yes younger drivers have a high accident rate, is it due to age or lack of experience. It must be age, how dare they be young when I am not, lets think of a few more punishments, and don't worry about solving the problem.

This will kill employment opportunities especially for those in rural communities, road deaths have increased with the reduction of policing, invest in policing again and empower young people, don't cripple them and force them to risk breaking more laws.

Good idea, these kids drive perfectly to pass their test and then think they can drive! When they (normally young men) get their confidence, they drive outrageously .The statistics speak volumes

Is this the same crowd that reduce the age to 18 to drive a lorry? I agree in a way about young drivers however I think maybe there should be a pass plus licence like an advance licence should be the way to go! A

This is outrageous! Im 24 years old and have a child who is 17months old. If I needed to take my child out for emergency reasons would this mean its illegal after 10pm? I dont finish work until 12am either. Seems stupid to be honest

Why not just have a re-test after 12 months driving for young people under 25 and then every 5 years for every single driver thereafter. There are plenty of motorists of all ages who forget the lessons learned after they pass the test! For the sake of £40 re-test I would be happy to refresh my skills in line with other professional competence.

More ageist rubbish! Why on earth is the government so against young people, well actually in many cases it's society itself, don't want them to drive, don't want them to go to Uni, don't want them to work, yet make older people pay more, work more.... Where's the sense in that? I don't think it's the test that's wrong, I think that maybe we need to be able to separate some of our leisure activities from the public highway and start making sure that the people who are on the road are there legitimately and safely.

What a ridiculous idea, who at any age could possibly afford to pay for 120 hours of driving. Don't you think it is about time you gave teenagers a chance to have the same experiences as other countries. I have never heard of such a stupid idea. Just another way to make more money out of motorists I am assuming.. What idiot came up with this idea, obviously not someone who has to pay for any driving lessons.

Who can afford 120 supervised hours tuition? Most people have their lesions with a friend or relative as well as paid lesions. What happens to drivers under 30 with a child to care to daycare or school before going to work? And as commented above school leavers with jobs a distance away from home for whom a car is essential. Oh! Why not let us have more people on benefits. Apart form the driving schools of course.

Why not reduce road traffic accidents to nil - just lower the speed limit to zero! Seriously this is yet another example of responsibility being removed from individuals through legislation. At some point we are going to have to realise that life has risks and that individuals have responsibilities. The balance is not improved by delaying the onset of good sense, better to REDUCE driving age - 15 is about right - and instil responsibility through better tuition. Driving skills should be a GCSE not a degree.

With regard to night driving It only happened about 10 times before I was 19 but I had to be in work by 5am. I suppose if the worst happened I could have got a taxi those days but it would have been expensive as my work place was just over 7 miles from home without public transport at that time of the morning. These early starts all happened in the summer so it was reasonably light anyway. I suppose I could have managed without the car on those days. My employers did expect me to generally have a car but they did accept there were odd days when I would not have it for example when it was being serviced or when we were going for a Christmas drink.

Nice how they publish the statistics and say young/new drivers. They obviously have the accident data so it should not be too difficult to split they accident figures by gender. I have a feeling that female drivers are being unfairly targeted here. Publish the complete facts please and show the true cause of the problem. A 1000cc limit and re-test if an accident occurs within two years of passing the test would at least be a little fairer. Why do we punish the masses for the failures of a few??

Bringing all these rules and regulations are going to deter young people from learning to drive, which 90% of driving schools actually rely on young drivers for their business. How many more people is this government going to put out of work. If you would like to check out some bad driving, maybe its time to watch some marked Road Traffic Police BMWs!

The Practical driving test should be made harder instead of allowing 14 minor faults on the driving test it should be reduced to 7 .if you think about it that is a fault every 2 mins they are doing there test that tells me sooner or later they are going to have an accident .

Ridiculous - It is already so hard for our youngsters to make the move from education to work and now we put another hurdle in their way!

Increasing the age to 19 years to improve driving standards and safety will only move the accident statistics to that age group and nothing more . The answer is to overhaul the driving test , which in my view is not fit for purpose in this day and age .Then having passed a test , any road collision ( reported to the Police / Insurance company in the following 2 years will require an extended driving test

I did A levels at school and passed my test while I was 17 and my 18th birthday fell 5 weeks before I left school and I started work the next day. The job required me to have a full driving licence. Also 2 of my friends got jobs 10 miles from where they lived with no public transport to them. In all our cases we would have probably been unemployed for a time if we had not been able to get driving licences.

Wy not make it the same motor bike's first year 1 cc 2 year 1'2

Sounds a bit loony to me! night workers,young lasses at risk from attack [stiffen the penalty for that first] then instal the motor cycle type education with a restriction on engine size and the P plate.It take a long time to learn to drive properly having passed your practical test-the sooner these kids learn that the better for all of us.I learned road skill on a 250cc BSA and that kept me alive it's called self preservation and appreciation of the road and other road users.Kids today just want to go as fast as possible and show off, and all other drivers are paying for it in their road tax and insurance premiums.I spent 16 years of my spare time teaching young motor-cyclists to be good ,safe, courteous and to consider others road users-they don't teach that nowadays.

Driving is an essential skill and often a requirement for a job. If a 17 year old wants to learn to drive and they have the capability to do so at 17 they should be allowed to do so. The teaching methods and after test practice should be looked at here and not the age of the person. Re-take the practical every 3 years until aged 25 with an experienced examiner who can 'downgrade' a licence if they feel it necessary and suggest extra lessons in certain areas and enforce a re-take. As for the drink drive limit being different for experienced drivers, what utter clap trap! The ability to drive well is compromised by alcohol whatever your age! I'm an experienced driver well over the 17 years old mark and I don't drink at all if I'm going to get in the car due to a complete inability to perform safely and properly at the wheel even after one glass of wine, indeed I can probably drink a lot less than the young inexperienced drivers of today.

I agree with p plates but regarding the rest is pure nonsense and expensive for the young motorist that wants his or her independence. another government think tank that is a waste of money why not implement a rule that if a youngster or a person having a full licence under three years has a serious accident involving medical treatment. and is found to be there fault is automatically banned for twelve months I think a rule like this would make the your or inexperienced driver more aware

It's a bit draconian...... Just make it a legal requirement to ride a moped/small bike for a year before you can drive...... That sorts a vast majority of road awareness out

i think the government is crackers. they want people to get jobs, these days a lot of teenagers are working night shifts, this would result in many teenages having no transport to work. next issue is people car share, what happens if you are 24 and your partner is 22, and you are going on holiday and you need to drive to the airport, and your plane is delayed. this government is trying to change to much, they want people to work but then they try and enforce new rules in the times you can drive. why not just ban any form of alcohol being in the system for drivers full stop. and why not limit the engine size on new learners. and how can the government manage how long the user has been on lessons for, what happens if you have been learning to drive for the last few months and the new rules come into place. do you have to start all your hours again, how can you prove how many hours you have actually done. also how do the government think people can afford all the these hours. normally each lesson costs £20 a hr and they government want you to do 120 hours supervised- taking the cost of learning to £2400. i think the government is asking to much, if they want driver to improve why not make them go on a pass plus course.

I have a nineteen year old daughter who was attacked by four men on a Manchester Bus in the evening. She now uses her car all of the time so that she is not vulnerable on public transport. I would not want for her or any other young girls who otherwise would be able to drive to be vulnerable because of new laws

Ridiculous. What about those young adults who have to work night shifts? Why don't the government consider treating car drivers the way they treat motorcyclists, and restrict young drivers to slower cars with less acceleration ability. Crashes are caused by lack of expreience and over-confidence. Do the government think that by delaying the test by another year will alleviate that? On the plus side, though, it will encourage more youngsters to get scooters/motorcycles as a form of transport which will give them the experience of what we motorcyclists get treated with every day.

There is no doubt that the process needs improvements, but will P plates and night time curfews really stop younger drivers driving stupidly the rest of the time? From what I remember when I was that age, everyone who had passed their test thought they were the best driver on the road, I can't see a 6ish month delay in being allowed to take the test making a big difference.