Just add fuel for 17year olds?

londonTiger

I'm out of this forum due to constant bullying by forum members

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

And without parental support, how is a young person supposed to afford to take their test, buy, run and insure a car before they get a job, especially whilst at college/university?

A guy of 26 years of age has presumably been working long enough to have saved up for a car/insurance costs so shouldn't be any more disadvantaged than the young person who passed their test at 17 and then never drove again until they were 21+.

If I had to choose between two 21 year olds, one who had passed test at 17 but never driven since or the 21 year old who had just passed his test, I'd choose the latter one every time.

And for the record, my son has owned his own car since he passed his test aged 17. He's now 21 and drives an Audi A4 2.0 TDi S-line on an 09 plate with insurance costing just £750 a year FC.

Again, we're back to talking about money as your deciding factor and as a basis for your argument?

Hes disadvantaged because he could be doing an awful lot better for himself if he had a licence as his ability to travel to where the right career opportunities are for him are very limited.

Not sure why this big argument - your son has his test from 17, has his own car, so why are you so against it?

My son got his first car at the tail end of last year when he was 19 - 2009 BMW 120D M Sport 3 door - £1200 fully comp in his own name.

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

If I had to choose between two 21 year olds, one who had passed test at 17 but never driven since or the 21 year old who had just passed his test, I'd choose the latter one every time.

Why would you be choosing between two 21 year olds?? :eek:

Clearly you have some issue that you're not discussing on here - your views on here are at odds with what you say you have worked with your son to do. Your objections are based around scenarios whereby finance is a problem, but you tell us you dont have financial problems.

Just plain weird to be honest.

~Chameleon~

motorguy wrote: »

Again, we're back to talking about money as your deciding factor and as a basis for your argument?

Because I've come across quite a few young men who took their test aged 17/18 and bought themselves a little boy racer car but then couldn't afford to insure it. Do you think they sat there looking at their wonderful new toy sitting in the driveway knowing full well they couldn't drive it?

NO!! Of course not!! Temptation proves too much so they end up driving uninsured. Especially in rural areas where they're unlikely to come across ANPR cameras and traffic cops!

That is why I don't believe it's worth taking your test unless you fully expect to continue driving afterwards. My other reason being that driving skills learnt during lessons can soon be forgotten. An inexperienced driver on the roads is a risk at the best of times but one who hasn't been behind the wheel of a car for a number of months or even years since passing their test is positively a danger to other road users.

I'd rather not share the roads with such people, thank you. I really don't understand why people fail to see my point!


There are thought to be about 1.2m uninsured drivers on the road of which one in 10 are aged between 17 and 20.

~Chameleon~

motorguy wrote: »

Just plain weird to be honest.

No, what is more weird is that you seem to think every 17 year old out there has parents that will fund driving lessons, cars and insurance for them. There are many who can't/don't. It's not a god given right to hold a driving licence. It's a privilege of those who can afford it. And if that means going out to work so you can afford to pay for it then so be it.

Hintza

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

I really don't understand why people fail to see my point!

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

It's not a god given right to hold a driving licence. It's a privilege of those who can afford it.

Because your point is now coming across with an "I'm alright Jack" narcissistic attitude.

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Because I've come across quite a few young men who took their test aged 17/18 and bought themselves a little boy racer car but then couldn't afford to insure it. Do you think they sat there looking at their wonderful new toy sitting in the driveway knowing full well they couldn't drive it?

NO!! Of course not!! Temptation proves too much so they end up driving uninsured. Especially in rural areas where they're unlikely to come across ANPR cameras and traffic cops!

Oh come on, this is a made up example to make a feeble point.

Young dumb person does test, buys car, didnt bother to check insurance, has parents who let him drive uninsured, doesnt get stopped, has an accident, dies, therefore noone should do their test when they are 17!

:rotfl:

In rural areas you're MORE likely to have the cops stop you - particularly if you're a young fella in a flash car. I got stopped twice last year because the police car behind me had checked insurance against the reg and it came up as having no insurance - i've trade insurance but they didnt know that till they stopped me. And trust me, i live in a very rural area.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

That is why I don't believe it's worth taking your test unless you fully expect to continue driving afterwards. My other reason being that driving skills learnt during lessons can soon be forgotten. An inexperienced driver on the roads is a risk at the best of times but one who hasn't been behind the wheel of a car for a number of months or even years since passing their test is positively a danger to other road users.

I'd rather not share the roads with such people, thank you. I really don't understand why people fail to see my point!


There are thought to be about 1.2m uninsured drivers on the road of which one in 10 are aged between 17 and 20.

Its not that people fail to see your point, its that you are placing far too much emphasis on it, relative to the possible opportunities having your test will have come the time for looking for a job (relative to commuting)

As i said, all your blockers seemed to be based around financial constraints, which may or may not apply to the bulk of people.

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

No, what is more weird is that you seem to think every 17 year old out there has parents that will fund driving lessons, cars and insurance for them. There are many who can't/don't. It's not a god given right to hold a driving licence. It's a privilege of those who can afford it. And if that means going out to work so you can afford to pay for it then so be it.

So what job did your son have that he was able to have his own car on his 17th birthday and insure it in his own name???

Mate, you're really coming across as "well, all these poor people cant possibly afford to buy a car, so why let them get their test?"

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

No, what is more weird is that you seem to think every 17 year old out there has parents that will fund driving lessons, cars and insurance for them.

Like you did with your son?

motorguy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

It's not a god given right to hold a driving licence. It's a privilege of those who can afford it.

That smacks of a "I'm considerably richer than yew" viewpoint on life.

Sad really.