Barely Legal Drivers - what does it say about the Driving Test?

Cornucopia

I watched a few episodes of the last series of BLD, and have watched all three of the current series.

For those who haven't, the programme follows young drivers who are out on the road having recently passed their Driving Tests. They are captured on obvious in-car cameras, and followed by a camera crew - whilst the drivers aren't told the actual purpose of this, they would have to be somewhat gullible not to be on their best driving behaviour whilst being filmed.

The "jeopardy point" of the programme is that the footage is reviewed by parents and experts to determine whether the drivers should be given more lessons or a second-hand car.

Aside from the obvious issue of whether the Licence Fee should be used to buy cars for people, the sheer paucity of the driving across virtually every candidate is horrifying.

In a few cases, the narrative is that there has been a time gap since passing the test, which could explain how the driving has deteriorated, but even so it's difficult to see how most of these young people could have passed the test... unless the test is no longer fit for purpose.

Is the test easier now than in the past?

Why would we want an easier driving test?

Quentin

They are making a TV programme!

Wouldn't be much fun watching perfect drivers like me and you doing manuoevres.

Cornucopia

Quentin wrote: »

They are making a TV programme!

Wouldn't be much fun watching perfect drivers like me and you doing manuoevres.

Well, yes, but they can only show what actually happens on the road, and these are real cars on real roads doing things that equate to reckless driving, speeding, driving without due care and using a mobile phone whilst driving.

In the first series, the film crew intervened to stop one of the drivers from driving under the influence.

But as per the thread title, I'm less critical of the programme concept(*) and more concerned about what it says about the Driving Test. In other words, if these are the 12 worst young drivers in the country, that would be reassuring... but it doesn't seem very plausible.


(*) I suspect it would be a better programme (but perhaps less "BBC3") if the young people were shown being given the one-to-one tuition by a parent or other responsible person, and then being tested to determine their suitability for a car of their own.

wba31

I passed my test, got my own car, then drove like a complete moron for a few years.
Had i had a load of cameras in my car i imagine i would have been a bit more sensible for that time period, but i was a cocky 19 yr old who thought i knew best.

To this day i think the driving age should be upped to 21 - or drivers under 21/in first few years of driving should be limited on engine size etc. I think limiting the times that they can drive or stopping them going on the motorway is too detrimental, especially if they work...

londonTiger

I think if you go and take you driving test far out in a rural town somewhere, anyone will pass. If there's no traffic about that takes away 90% of all the things that can cause you to fail. It's not the operation of the vehicle that new drivers fail on it's responding incorrectly to other vehicles and pedestrians that causes people to fail.

maninthestreet

The show last night - how did that girl pass her driving test in the first place? She had no idea how to use the clutch! You don't forget things like that once you've passed the driving test.

londonTiger

wba31 wrote: »

To this day i think the driving age should be upped to 21 - or drivers under 21/in first few years of driving should be limited on engine size etc. I think limiting the times that they can drive or stopping them going on the motorway is too detrimental, especially if they work...

There are plenty of people aged 17 and over who are responsible enough and capable of driving safely.

Consider that a lot of entry level jobs that require driving (as well as commuting) you're taking away a lot of peoples job prospects when youth unemployment is high as it is already

If someone is old enough to vote, drink alcohol, join the army to defend the country, they should be old enough to drive.

it's not that someone is young that is causing fatalities, it's the fact that they're new on the road that is doing that. Whether you start driving at 17 or you start driving at 30 you will still be green on the road and make the beginner mistakes.

Plenty of 30 year old driving like maniacs.

londonTiger

maninthestreet wrote: »

The show last night - how did that girl pass her driving test in the first place? She had no idea how to use the clutch! You don't forget things like that once you've passed the driving test.

my clutch control was pretty bad after I started driving my own vehicle. Although I did take a 5 year break after passing my test, so I completely lost all my muscle memory for clutch control by then. Wasn't dangerous or nothing, just overreved the engine a bit too much as I didn't quite hit the biting point.

DirectDebacle

Driver training and the driving test needs to be improved significantly. Drivers should be trained to IAM/RoSPA advanced standards and tested accordingly. You will then see a significant reduction in accident statistics and insurance premiums across the board together with many other benefits.

Unfortunately this obvious solution is neither politically or financially attractive to those with vested interests.

PasturesNew

Let the license enable them to drive one of those old, light blue, disabled cars, until they're 25 .... transportation, but you won't be acting like a fool with one of those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AC_Invalid_Carriage_1976.JPG

londonTiger

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Driver training and the driving test needs to be improved significantly. Drivers should be trained to IAM/RoSPA advanced standards and tested accordingly. You will then see a significant reduction in accident statistics and insurance premiums across the board together with many other benefits.

Unfortunately this obvious solution is neither politically or financially attractive to those with vested interests.

In the three years I've been driving I've never witnessed any life threatening accidents, ever.

I witnessed 3 minor <10mph accidents when people were doing parking/driving off manoeuvres.

Let me guess you are a IAM license holder so now you want everyone else to have one.

It seems that you're the type of person who:
1) Wants to set the driving test to such a high standard that it will result in drastically fewer vehicles on the road
2) Economically deprive young people from gaining access to vehicles because passing the test will require £3000+ of tuiton. You cannot possibly get to IAM standard of driving without several years on the road first. The only way you can get that experience if you dont hold a license is to do hundreds of lessons.
3) overestimates what you need to get from A-B safely, thinks somehow IAMs practice of being able to name the vehicle behind you at any given time makes you a safer driver. When it's just being pointlessly over cautious.

Also, what happened to the 10-2 position?