240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I get all that Alan and also agree we shouldn't subsidise new drivers - perhaps we should be educating them better and making the standard of competence to drive higher to start with.

As for whiplash, i bought my second Jag with part of the payout i had for mine. The Jag is long gone, however 20+ years on, i'm still suffering the effects of the whiplash. Genuine whiplash is a horrible thing but i do know many try and fake it.

Well, I think we are already doing the educating bit Dave. Getting a licence to drive a motor car is certainly far more difficult than it was in 1978 (when I took my test): there are theory as well as practical tests now, and standards are much higher (it was a very easy test back in the 70s). For motorcycles the qualification scheme is even more difficult, in 1978 it was a 'ride round the block' test; today there are 4 different levels to pass (each with theory and practical tests) such that one cannot get an unlimited licence until one is 26. Still there are lots of accidents amongst new drivers and riders.

I suppose the main issue is the population density, there were around 50 million of us Brits when I was at school; today there are 67 million and that number keeps rising by 300,000/year (the reasons why it is rising don't matter here). In the 40-odd years that I've been driving the expectation that one might have a right to a motor car has risen enormously. In the 1970s very few families had more than one motor car (many had none), today car ownership is much more prevalent.

I'm not doubting that whiplash can be a painful condition Dave. I just have an issue with the compensation culture that connects blame to almost everything, especially if a culprit with some money (or good insurance cover) may be identified. My 61 year old body carries much damage from years of playing rugby at a good level and life in the military. I consider them all to be just manifestations of the life I chose (and enjoyed), and don't expect anyone to compensate me for any of them. That is just personal view of course, and not one shared by society at large.

Interesting discussion,

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Well, I think we are already doing the educating bit Dave. Getting a licence to drive a motor car is certainly far more difficult than it was in 1978 (when I took my test): there are theory as well as practical tests now, and standards are much higher (it was a very easy test back in the 70s). For motorcycles the qualification scheme is even more difficult, in 1978 it was a 'ride round the block' test; today there are 4 different levels to pass (each with theory and practical tests) such that one cannot get an unlimited licence until one is 26. Still there are lots of accidents amongst new drivers and riders.

I suppose the main issue is the population density, there were around 50 million of us Brits when I was at school; today there are 67 million and that number keeps rising by 300,000/year (the reasons why it is rising don't matter here). In the 40-odd years that I've been driving the expectation that one might have a right to a motor car has risen enormously. In the 1970s very few families had more than one motor car (many had none), today car ownership is much more prevalent.

I'm not doubting that whiplash can be a painful condition Dave. I just have an issue with the compensation culture that connects blame to almost everything, especially if a culprit with some money (or good insurance cover) may be identified. My 61 year old body carries much damage from years of playing rugby at a good level and life in the military. I consider them all to be just manifestations of the life I chose (and enjoyed), and don't expect anyone to compensate me for any of them. That is just personal view of course, and not one shared by society at large.

Interesting discussion,

:-)

That's a valid point about the theory and practical tests Alan, i was referring more to the actual abilities of people to judge distances, widths, speeds and so on and to read the road ahead, none of which is really addressed in the driving tests.
Granted you have to have a basic knowledge of your vehicles size but the number of times i drive up to where i walk Sasha and a small car coming the other way will pull almost off the road, certainly with the wheels of one side on the verge leaving a 4-5ft gap as we pass and all i've done is move in near to the verge is amazing.
Larger cars, they tend to move over to the verge like me and we still pass safely with ~3ft between us.
Just one example. I have several others but you get the idea i was talking about?

I can speak from experience here but i seriously doubt you or any of the other "seasoned" drivers would pass the Theory part of the driving test first time, specifically the Hazard Perception. I'm guessing you've seen what it's all about with Dan but for any that haven't, you are shown a video with a drivers POV as a car travels round an area with various hazards appearing. You must click the mouse when you recognise it as a hazard. The way the software works (so i was told some 17 ish years ago) is there is a time window around the optimum point at which to click the mouse to say you've recognised the hazard. Either side of this point, the marks for that hazard stand a chance of not being counted if you're too far advanced or retarded from the actual optimum time to click.
The reason i say you and most other "seasoned" drivers (including myself) would fail first time on the Hazard Perception is because we tend to read the road ahead and recognise hazards building before they become hazards so click "outside the window". Too many clicks "outside the window" and you fail and yes, i did fail for precisely that reason.
Next one i waited a second or so after seeing the hazard and then clicked and passed with flying colours. Had i been taking a car test, i would have waited 2 seconds or so but i was taking a different one where anticipation was more important.

The main two problems are as you rightly point out, population density and population density. First there are more of us but secondly and more importantly IMHO, there are disproportionately more stupid people (a more dense population ) and you can't fix stupid.
It also doesn't help when people use look-a-likes to take their test for them and then get their driving licences having had little or no tuition in some cases and certainly never passed a test of their own.

As for the whiplash problems i still suffer, if i'd listened to the GP i would have had a pointless carpal tunnel syndrome operation by now plus numerous other ineffective treatments. Too many GPs don't consider whiplash and the problems it can cause and if i'd known when the compensation was offered what life would be like now, i would have insisted on at least one zero on the end of the figure offered but probably two zeroes.
With that in mind, the insurance premiums these days have to cover those costs for the underwriters but in my opinion are still ridiculously high.

Andrew quoted his first premium for a 15 year old Beetle in 1971 as being ~6 weeks wages. When i had my Cortina, someone i worked with also had a Beetle and he was paying a lot more (£350-400 if memory serves) for his insurance and knowing roughly what he was paid at the time, that also equated to ~6 weeks wages. When i later upgraded my car and insurance to fully comp, i was paying ~£400 with 1 years NCB, not quite 6 weeks wages (about 3-4 weeks as my wages had risen by then too) but if i'd done it when i was still 17 it would have been ~£600 so would have been ~6 weeks wages.

What does a 17 year old earn these days? Most are still at school so not a lot, maybe £80/wk part time in McDonalds if they're lucky so their premiums should be ~£500 if the above rough constant is applied. However premiums in the £1000s are months of wages at that rate. Also when Andrew started driving, petrol would have been 25-30p/gallon (about 6p/L = 27p/gallon for those too young to remember gallons) and even at todays prices of £1.80/L, using that factor would only make his premium of £52 for his Beetle £1560 so he'd need to earn £260/wk as a 17 y/o worker now.

This is just one way of looking at things, there are many others. Those that are familiar with other ways of relating money back then to what it is now via inflation and other things will no doubt come up with different figures but either way, insurance premiums just aren't affordable for most 17 year olds without parental intervention.

[Snow White]

Originally Posted by Othen

I'm not sure anyone is getting ripped off Dave - it is just that the risks are enormously high and the costs of fixing things if they go wrong can be very high also. I've just cut and pasted this from some place on the internet (the first result that came up):

How many drivers crash in their first year of driving?
Nationwide, 43 percent of first-year drivers and 37 percent of second-year drivers are involved in car crashes

... so nearly half of all new drivers have an accident in their first year, and not many less in their second year.

I won't like the idea of having to pay 2 grand to insure a Skoda Fabia (or similar) when Dan passes his test and gets his first motor, but then given the above I don't see why all other motorists should subsidise new drivers just because they are careless.

Looking at it from the insurance underwriter's perspective, a couple of grand to cover a new driver seems cheap if he/she has almost a 50-50 chance of a prang in the first year. Motor cars have become very expensive to repair because we have chosen to have a high cost/high wage society and indeed very fixable vehicles are frequently written-off as a result. We have also chosen to become a compensation culture society, indeed it seems almost an expectation that victims of minor accidents will expect a few thousand for made up whiplash or similar un-disprovable conditions. I don't agree with the compensation culture, but someone has to pay for it.

So, whilst I won't like having to stump up the cash to get Dan insured, I can understand the reasons why.

:-(

Alan

From my personal experience of driving my mini into the rear of a stationary vehicle shortly after passing my test (45 years ago) plus the knowledge I have of my children, their friends, my nieces and nephews etc. and the associated list of incidents that I am aware of; I’m surprised it’s not over 50%!
Thankfully these accidents have been minor and have not caused injury . However, very sadly in my professional capacity, I all too frequently see cases of young drivers involved in high speed traffic incidents caused by a combination inexperience, bravado, drink or drugs; where death and serious injuries have been caused. Often it is not until new young drivers have been made aware of their fallibility and immortality, that they start to drive with more caution - that is they are lucky to still be driving.
The price of insuring new drivers, is inevitably high and soars to astronomic prices, prohibitive to most youngsters, following an incident.
I would always endorse better driver education.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

This is just one way of looking at things, there are many others. Those that are familiar with other ways of relating money back then to what it is now via inflation and other things will no doubt come up with different figures but either way, insurance premiums just aren't affordable for most 17 year olds without parental intervention.

You make some excellent points Dave, and particularly that last one. There is a danger (and it is a very real one) that when insurance rates are very expensive people will not bother with it at all... I think that happens quite a lot.

I'm just about to find out how unaffordable insurance is for 17 year olds - and suspect it will be a painful experience for me :-(

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Snow White

From my personal experience of driving my mini into the rear of a stationary vehicle shortly after passing my test (45 years ago) plus the knowledge I have of my children, their friends, my nieces and nephews etc. and the associated list of incidents that I am aware of; I’m surprised it’s not over 50%!
Thankfully these accidents have been minor and have not caused injury . However, very sadly in my professional capacity, I all too frequently see cases of young drivers involved in high speed traffic incidents caused by a combination inexperience, bravado, drink or drugs; where death and serious injuries have been caused. Often it is not until new young drivers have been made aware of their fallibility and immortality, that they start to drive with more caution - that is they are lucky to still be driving.
The price of insuring new drivers, is inevitably high and soars to astronomic prices, prohibitive to most youngsters, following an incident.
I would always endorse better driver education.

Good points also.

My experience of living in Virginia would indicate this isn't an age issue, but one of experience. New drivers there could apply for a learner's permit at 15 years and 6 months - but that would not allow them to drive within city limits. Most of Virginia is more rural that the UK so there were still plenty of opportunities to gain driving experience and less opportunities to hit things. The rate of traffic accidents was a bit lower in the Commonwealth of Virginia than it is here.

The problem in the UK comes down to population density (both of people and motor cars). With more experience people become better drivers, but there is a problem allowing people to gain experience safely that is hard to meet with education.

I'm not sure I can suggest a solution (apart from lowering the population density, but that may be a little too radical for liberal minded folk).

:-(

[Snow White]

The first real price jump comes when they pass their test and go solo!

[loki_the_glt]

A major part of the premium on modern vehicles is probably down to the cost of repairs. Bumpers have lots of sensors in them nowadays and, apparently, CANBUS networks cause repair companies major headaches when replacing modules - on some Toyotas you can only make 2 (yes 2) substitutions without rendering the car useless so replacing the radio/infotainment system and a door mirror could kill the car.

Then there is the compensation issue, as mentioned already, with some people having "dial-a-claim" on speed dial and seeing every accident as a chance for some "free" money. I speak from bitter experience on this as a woman whose car ripped off my front bumper at about 5~10mph claimed for whiplash several months later.

Schemes like Pass-Plus help to mitigate the cost but it's going to cost a lot of money for a teenage to start earning their own NCD.

[Moomoo]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

A major part of the premium on modern vehicles is probably down to the cost of repairs. Bumpers have lots of sensors in them nowadays and, apparently, CANBUS networks cause repair companies major headaches when replacing modules - on some Toyotas you can only make 2 (yes 2) substitutions without rendering the car useless so replacing the radio/infotainment system and a door mirror could kill the car.

Then there is the compensation issue, as mentioned already, with some people having "dial-a-claim" on speed dial and seeing every accident as a chance for some "free" money. I speak from bitter experience on this as a woman whose car ripped off my front bumper at about 5~10mph claimed for whiplash several months later.



Schemes like Pass-Plus help to mitigate the cost but it's going to cost a lot of money for a teenage to start earning their own NCD.

I believe a lot of low speed collisions occur, purely out of the “ claim for blame “ culture that exists now!
I have experienced this in as much as when a car hit the pick-up I was driving, the passenger claimed for non-existent injuries; even attending physio for fake injuries.

Nauseating.

What are we breeding.

Oh , he enjoyed his week in Lazarote.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

A major part of the premium on modern vehicles is probably down to the cost of repairs. Bumpers have lots of sensors in them nowadays and, apparently, CANBUS networks cause repair companies major headaches when replacing modules - on some Toyotas you can only make 2 (yes 2) substitutions without rendering the car useless so replacing the radio/infotainment system and a door mirror could kill the car.

Then there is the compensation issue, as mentioned already, with some people having "dial-a-claim" on speed dial and seeing every accident as a chance for some "free" money. I speak from bitter experience on this as a woman whose car ripped off my front bumper at about 5~10mph claimed for whiplash several months later.

Schemes like Pass-Plus help to mitigate the cost but it's going to cost a lot of money for a teenage to start earning their own NCD.

Originally Posted by Moomoo

I believe a lot of low speed collisions occur, purely out of the “ claim for blame “ culture that exists now!
I have experienced this in as much as when a car hit the pick-up I was driving, the passenger claimed for non-existent injuries; even attending physio for fake injuries.

Nauseating.

What are we breeding.

Oh , he enjoyed his week in Lazarote.

Good points chaps. Sadly I must agree: the ambulance chasers have won.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That's a valid point about the theory and practical tests Alan, i was referring more to the actual abilities of people to judge distances, widths, speeds and so on and to read the road ahead, none of which is really addressed in the driving tests.

I've done some research into the process for Dan to obtain a driving licence today. We (well DVLA/DVSA actually) has invented another layer of testing with the theory test, and with it another layer of bureaucracy...

I am informed (by a local driving instructor) that DVLA is likely to take between 3 weeks and 3 months to send Dan his learner's permit. Once that arrives Dan must apply to take a theory test, there is a 3 week waiting time for that. Once Dan has passed the theory test he may apply for a practical test - the lead time for that is 6 months (currently there are no appointments until November). So, assuming the worst case of Dan not receiving his driver's permit until August, and it being September before he may attempt the theory test, he would not be able to attempt a driving practical test until March next year. I'm not sure what the excuse the civil servants at DVLA/DVSA are hiding behind, but this really isn't very good.

I contrast this with my experience with the DMV in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I arrived one morning bright an early having made no appointment (but in uniform, which always seemed to oil the wheels a little in the USA). I explained who I was to the helpful receptionist, who gave me a copy of the Virginia highway code and told me to take a seat. I took the theory test about half an hour later (having skimmed through the highway code leaflet), and my practical driving test an hour after that (a pretty easy test, I must admit). I left at lunchtime with my newly printed plastic driver's license in my pocket.

Ho hum...

:-)