How about a mandatory retest every 18 months for those over 70 first? And any points acquired over 60 start the retesting early.
Thought age was a protected class
This is just another attack on young people in this country. People wonder why we’re in a state of arrested development where young people continue to put off starting families. Because this country continues to make it more and more difficult to do so.
They justify paying you less because you’re young, you can’t save up, even if you do then it’s nigh on impossible to get a deposit together without assistance, your insurance is about two grand as a young driver (if you’re lucky) and now they’re clamping down on things like car sharing because of isolated incidents.
Fucking joke country.
This makes 0 sense. I could be 17 and have a A1 Bike licence and have a passenger on a motorbike. But god fordbid I have a 17 year old friend/co worker in my car if I have a full car licence at 17
Because fuck the young parents. Why the hell would 24 year old mother or father shouldn’t be allowed to take their own kids to nursery?
Why is it age related? If new drivers are risk ban all not just under 25s.
This is such a strange suggestion, in the article they mention that for the first six months after passing, a driver under 25 wouldn’t be able to carry passengers under 25. Then they mention the tragic loss of a 17 year old who died in a crash with an 18 year old driver who passed 4 months earlier.
Would that 2 months of experience really saved a life? If the passenger had been 26 does that save her in the event of a car crash?
How about we talk about banning dangerous drivers for life? Imposing proper punishments on drivers who kill people with their cars?
Perhaps the aim is to stop groups of young people egging each other on to drive fast? Then why prevent 25 year old parents from picking up their kids after school?
25 is such a specifically strange number too. If new drivers are so dangerous, why would a 30 year old new driver be any safer than 25 year old one? I could understand if the limit was perhaps 23 (as this is the standard lower limit to hire a rental car) but 25 is so weirdly high for UK law. I can’t think of anything other than check 25.
Bizarre law if it comes to pass.
Disclaimer: I’m a 23 year old who’s had a drivers licence for 7 years and I don’t currently own or use a car, I take public transport or walk.
So parents would need to wait a year to take their children places after passing their test? Does anyone think these rules through beforehand?
Give your 23 year old mate a carshare lift to work when youre 24 and just passed? Straight to jail.
I can just about see the logic in 17 year olds having restrictions, but nannying people to the point where they’re out of uni by nearly half a decade before being able to give lifts to their contemporaries after passing is fucking wild.
So… if I’ve read this right, new drivers wouldn’t be allowed to have *passengers* under 25 in the car for the first 6-12 months of passing their test?
Have I really misunderstood??? Because this seems absolutely ridiculous, or is this along the lines of a clickbait article with a silly proposal someone has made with 0 chance of introduction?
It seems absolutely pointless.
Passenger ban after you pass is pointless when you aren’t allowed a passenger when you’re learning anyway outside of an instructor/examiner or another licence holder who’s held that licence for a few years already iirc.
​
But of course, anything to fuck over young people by the Tories, what’s next? passenger insurance required like motorcycles?
Middle finger to young parents – especially single ones – who need to get a licence to move their kids around.
This is just so poorly thought out. How the heck do you police who passed six months ago and who didn’t and how old their passengers are?
Why should a young mother not be able to drive her child to school or the supermarket?
Why are the 4/5 who *don’t* crash in the year after passing being penalised for the 1/5 who do? And how many of those 1/5 will respect this law?
It’s yet another example of a government ignoring actual problems in favour of dreaming up solutions to ones that don’t exist.
Yet another unenforceable scheme seeing as there are no police to enforce it, and if it was enforced the resources should go towards actual crimes rather than criminalising and demonising a particular set of people (youngsters) when all across the driving spectrum there are criminally atrocious drivers and driving standards from young to old, rich to poor etc etc.
Just have more police officers on the roads or streets, then we may see standards improve. One constant criticism about policing is the distinct lack of police officers. Creating new rules with no one to enforce them is pointless.
Why the ageist 25 policy? Is a 45 year old new driver likely to be better? My answer is they are likely to be a novice for longer, but in any case let’s worry about the many proven bad drivers of various ages who should be banned for longer, for less offending, and also more of them should be retested and psychologically evaluated.
This is just another way to punish young people. Typical Tory tactic.
Why just Under-25s though? Nearly every other developed country has a two-phase licensing system.
Once you pass the practical, you have a year to do an additional course with certain restrictions – once that year’s done, you get your unrestricted licence.
It’s misguided campaigners who maybe themself lost a relative who was a passenger, however there are spouses of middle aged cyclists killed by middle aged drivers, so we could listen to the bereaved forever I’m afraid.
Has it occurred to people that if you’ve got a car and your boss asks for a lift you’d have to either tell him to get lost or risk punishment? Also you may have to check their age ?
Let’s save the planet by car sharing, nah let’s not do that so more people under that age have to drive. Seriously.
This is daft. You’ve either passed your test and are qualified or not. There should be no grey area just because statistics try to make a point.
An apprentice wouldn’t be allowed to drive the work’s van without an age check. Can you image plod stopping everybody they think looks under 25 and questioning the occupants who don’t need to ID?
> an inquest found that Ms Mitchell, as a new driver, had been going “a little too fast” for the conditions when the collision took place
What the fuck difference would the age of her passengers made? You don’t have to be an inexperienced driver or a driver at all to tell someone you don’t feel safe while they’re driving and if even the inquest claimed “a little too fast” that’s a pretty blurry/thin line for anyone to identify
The age related laws and regulations in the UK are a mess.
Join army at 16. Sign upto £40k+ student debt at 18. But your maintenance loan is dependent on the financial circumstances of your parents. Who are under no requirement to give you a penny.
Can have a job, a family, a mortgage, debt. But apparently you’ve no need to earn a living wage until you’re 23!
Insurance is more expensive, jobs are worse paid, you have to be in education/training until 18, but can you lift share? Well apparently that’s not going to be allowed.
So what happens if your under 25 and have children!
Not sure it is a good idea, particularly with under 25 having children. It is often the reason why they do the driving test: school run and get to work.
This is an absolutely stupid idea that keeps coming up and keeps getting shot down for the same reasons. It is on par with the curfew idea in being overly restrictive, but this is even worse for one simple reason; if I was 24 and learned to drive for the first time to transport my newborn child around, actually doing so would be illegal, and that is just idiotic. As would the idea of a 24 year old not being able to take a younger sibling to school/work if their parents weren’t able to do so.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I was in a car with a new 17-year-old driver when I was at school and 3 other passengers; and I felt safe doing so because that friend was mature and sensible. Certainly far safer than I did in a car driven by a elderly relative that is sadly no longer with us (natural causes not road accident).
Welcome to Great Britain, one thing happens then it affects everyone. I swear the media runs this bloody place- Somehow, no one pays attention to them anymore so god knows how we make these knee jerk laws. If they really wanted to help they would do something about alcohol and cigarettes. I mean if they really cared about us…
At under 25 you can sign up to join the army and end up driving a bunch of other under 25 year olds over an IED but if you want to drive your kids home from school the government feels the need to step in and put a stop to it in the name of safety.
Ah yes, yet another policy to punish younger people for being younger. Truly groundbreaking, UK government.
Looking forward to cutting off my own feet to donate them to the elderly when the next election comes around.
29 comments
How about a mandatory retest every 18 months for those over 70 first? And any points acquired over 60 start the retesting early.
Thought age was a protected class
This is just another attack on young people in this country. People wonder why we’re in a state of arrested development where young people continue to put off starting families. Because this country continues to make it more and more difficult to do so.
They justify paying you less because you’re young, you can’t save up, even if you do then it’s nigh on impossible to get a deposit together without assistance, your insurance is about two grand as a young driver (if you’re lucky) and now they’re clamping down on things like car sharing because of isolated incidents.
Fucking joke country.
This makes 0 sense. I could be 17 and have a A1 Bike licence and have a passenger on a motorbike. But god fordbid I have a 17 year old friend/co worker in my car if I have a full car licence at 17
Because fuck the young parents. Why the hell would 24 year old mother or father shouldn’t be allowed to take their own kids to nursery?
Why is it age related? If new drivers are risk ban all not just under 25s.
This is such a strange suggestion, in the article they mention that for the first six months after passing, a driver under 25 wouldn’t be able to carry passengers under 25. Then they mention the tragic loss of a 17 year old who died in a crash with an 18 year old driver who passed 4 months earlier.
Would that 2 months of experience really saved a life? If the passenger had been 26 does that save her in the event of a car crash?
How about we talk about banning dangerous drivers for life? Imposing proper punishments on drivers who kill people with their cars?
Perhaps the aim is to stop groups of young people egging each other on to drive fast? Then why prevent 25 year old parents from picking up their kids after school?
25 is such a specifically strange number too. If new drivers are so dangerous, why would a 30 year old new driver be any safer than 25 year old one? I could understand if the limit was perhaps 23 (as this is the standard lower limit to hire a rental car) but 25 is so weirdly high for UK law. I can’t think of anything other than check 25.
Bizarre law if it comes to pass.
Disclaimer: I’m a 23 year old who’s had a drivers licence for 7 years and I don’t currently own or use a car, I take public transport or walk.
So parents would need to wait a year to take their children places after passing their test? Does anyone think these rules through beforehand?
Give your 23 year old mate a carshare lift to work when youre 24 and just passed? Straight to jail.
I can just about see the logic in 17 year olds having restrictions, but nannying people to the point where they’re out of uni by nearly half a decade before being able to give lifts to their contemporaries after passing is fucking wild.
So… if I’ve read this right, new drivers wouldn’t be allowed to have *passengers* under 25 in the car for the first 6-12 months of passing their test?
Have I really misunderstood??? Because this seems absolutely ridiculous, or is this along the lines of a clickbait article with a silly proposal someone has made with 0 chance of introduction?
It seems absolutely pointless.
Passenger ban after you pass is pointless when you aren’t allowed a passenger when you’re learning anyway outside of an instructor/examiner or another licence holder who’s held that licence for a few years already iirc.
​
But of course, anything to fuck over young people by the Tories, what’s next? passenger insurance required like motorcycles?
Middle finger to young parents – especially single ones – who need to get a licence to move their kids around.
This is just so poorly thought out. How the heck do you police who passed six months ago and who didn’t and how old their passengers are?
Why should a young mother not be able to drive her child to school or the supermarket?
Why are the 4/5 who *don’t* crash in the year after passing being penalised for the 1/5 who do? And how many of those 1/5 will respect this law?
It’s yet another example of a government ignoring actual problems in favour of dreaming up solutions to ones that don’t exist.
Yet another unenforceable scheme seeing as there are no police to enforce it, and if it was enforced the resources should go towards actual crimes rather than criminalising and demonising a particular set of people (youngsters) when all across the driving spectrum there are criminally atrocious drivers and driving standards from young to old, rich to poor etc etc.
Just have more police officers on the roads or streets, then we may see standards improve. One constant criticism about policing is the distinct lack of police officers. Creating new rules with no one to enforce them is pointless.
Why the ageist 25 policy? Is a 45 year old new driver likely to be better? My answer is they are likely to be a novice for longer, but in any case let’s worry about the many proven bad drivers of various ages who should be banned for longer, for less offending, and also more of them should be retested and psychologically evaluated.
This is just another way to punish young people. Typical Tory tactic.
Why just Under-25s though? Nearly every other developed country has a two-phase licensing system.
Once you pass the practical, you have a year to do an additional course with certain restrictions – once that year’s done, you get your unrestricted licence.
It’s misguided campaigners who maybe themself lost a relative who was a passenger, however there are spouses of middle aged cyclists killed by middle aged drivers, so we could listen to the bereaved forever I’m afraid.
Has it occurred to people that if you’ve got a car and your boss asks for a lift you’d have to either tell him to get lost or risk punishment? Also you may have to check their age ?
Let’s save the planet by car sharing, nah let’s not do that so more people under that age have to drive. Seriously.
This is daft. You’ve either passed your test and are qualified or not. There should be no grey area just because statistics try to make a point.
An apprentice wouldn’t be allowed to drive the work’s van without an age check. Can you image plod stopping everybody they think looks under 25 and questioning the occupants who don’t need to ID?
> an inquest found that Ms Mitchell, as a new driver, had been going “a little too fast” for the conditions when the collision took place
What the fuck difference would the age of her passengers made? You don’t have to be an inexperienced driver or a driver at all to tell someone you don’t feel safe while they’re driving and if even the inquest claimed “a little too fast” that’s a pretty blurry/thin line for anyone to identify
The age related laws and regulations in the UK are a mess.
Join army at 16. Sign upto £40k+ student debt at 18. But your maintenance loan is dependent on the financial circumstances of your parents. Who are under no requirement to give you a penny.
Can have a job, a family, a mortgage, debt. But apparently you’ve no need to earn a living wage until you’re 23!
Insurance is more expensive, jobs are worse paid, you have to be in education/training until 18, but can you lift share? Well apparently that’s not going to be allowed.
So what happens if your under 25 and have children!
Not sure it is a good idea, particularly with under 25 having children. It is often the reason why they do the driving test: school run and get to work.
This is an absolutely stupid idea that keeps coming up and keeps getting shot down for the same reasons. It is on par with the curfew idea in being overly restrictive, but this is even worse for one simple reason; if I was 24 and learned to drive for the first time to transport my newborn child around, actually doing so would be illegal, and that is just idiotic. As would the idea of a 24 year old not being able to take a younger sibling to school/work if their parents weren’t able to do so.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I was in a car with a new 17-year-old driver when I was at school and 3 other passengers; and I felt safe doing so because that friend was mature and sensible. Certainly far safer than I did in a car driven by a elderly relative that is sadly no longer with us (natural causes not road accident).
Welcome to Great Britain, one thing happens then it affects everyone. I swear the media runs this bloody place- Somehow, no one pays attention to them anymore so god knows how we make these knee jerk laws. If they really wanted to help they would do something about alcohol and cigarettes. I mean if they really cared about us…
At under 25 you can sign up to join the army and end up driving a bunch of other under 25 year olds over an IED but if you want to drive your kids home from school the government feels the need to step in and put a stop to it in the name of safety.
Ah yes, yet another policy to punish younger people for being younger. Truly groundbreaking, UK government.
Looking forward to cutting off my own feet to donate them to the elderly when the next election comes around.