Devastated

Senna

eringobragh wrote: »

Thats a tad bit harst don't you think.:eek: Maybe double points might be the answer. A years ban for doing... lets say 56k in a 50k is taking the piss.

Something is needed and it would make new drivers be more careful. I don't think its harsh at all.
then in the second year of getting your license, if you get caught speeding/no NCT/no seatbelt etc you'd get 6 points, so if you offend twice, you get a ban.

When the penalty point system was introduced there was a marked decrease in road accidents, because people were aware there would be consequences. Penalty points can work if theirs enough of a threat.

vibe666

Senna wrote: »

You couldn't tell a 35yr that s/he not allowed to drive a 3ltr car cause s/he too young.:D

ah c'mon, I'm sure they'd be grateful that they're still too young for something.

on the engine size thing, I know that even a 1L car can be a deadly weapon in inexperienced hands, but the risk and potential damage are much greater in a more powerful car.

that siad, it would probably have to go on horsepower/weight of a vehicle rather than the engine size. I saw somewhere that VW are going to be doing 1.2L golf with a supercharged engine that isn't far off the performance of the GTI model which would bput the engine size thing out the window.

I like the idea of more driver training though, schools and stuff should be doing it like they do in the US and having learners always accompanied by a qualified driver at all timesw wouldn't be a bad start either.

E92

Senna wrote: »

In principle a good plan, but it will never work.
A 1ltr car can be just as deadly in the hands of an inexperienced driver.

It's a terrible idea. The people most prone to accidents in some tiny yoke with no crash protection at all. And there aren't even a lot of 1.0 litre cars around anymore, virtually all the small cars use something bigger these days.

vibe666

E92 wrote: »

It's a terrible idea. The people most prone to accidents in some tiny yoke with no crash protection at all. And there aren't even a lot of 1.0 litre cars around anymore, virtually all the small cars use something bigger these days.

thanks E92, I hadn't realised that it was the people driving small low powered cars causing all the accidents. It's obvious to me now that cars less capable of driving at lethal speeds are more likely to cause accidents. how stupid of me. :rolleyes:

let me test my psychic powers, you recently blew out 17 candles on a cake didn't you.

and yes, there are still lots and lots of cars you can buy with 1L engines and a few with smaller ones than that. unfortunately for the testosterone fueled barely post pubescent masses they just aren't Integras or Skylines. those sorts of cars are meant for grown ups.

Cionád

OP could always get this monster, 700cc, 64bhp, 0-60 in 8 sec.... Thats only 1.5 sec slower than the Integra :cool:

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carid=879569

Be careful no-one sneezes near it though

Insurance companies prob wont like the convertible aspect though

msg11

Vibe, I think what the poster ment was, that most accidents happen from L drivers, who are in small cars, IE Hatchbacks, which are lethal if you ask me in an accident. Why I want to get out of the one I have, just to feel safe (and thats me, dont need a second option on it thanks). And result in serious/death on the roads in an accident.

As for the small cars, CC wise, the poster I think means that even the new cars are 1.2 , 1.3 or 1.4 . Not really a 1L around, that system wouldn't work there would be uproar over that.

Also on the subject of making things safe on the road, I suggest that a re-test should happen ever 10 years of your driving and sight. Lets not forget there are people on the roads that didnt even sit a test !!!

eringobragh

msg11 wrote: »

I suggest that a re-test should happen ever 10 years of your driving and sight. Lets not forget there are people on the roads that didnt even sit a test !!!

Yourself being one of them

The problem with low litre cars in they just can't cut it when overtaking for example, and inexperienced / untrained drivers don't seem to grasp this i've been forced into hard shoulder by someone in a fiesta overtaking against the wind and not enough poke to get by. Personally i wouldn't go any less than a 1.6 but thats not ideal for a learner.

S.I.R

imo engine size dont make a differance.... i was qouted 400 per month on a 1.6 civic typr but only 412 per month on a saab i had a short while ago.... the reputation of a car is what its all about :rolleyes:

groupb

The MX5 may have less power than the integra , but it also has less weight to haul around. Anyway telling a young inexperienced driver that a car does'nt have enough power is stupid.I think a system like motor bikes where a restictor is put on the engine might be worth a look. Then you can drive a 911 turbo if you want but it would still be limited to 80kmh.

ninty9er

Senna wrote: »

In principle a good plan, but it will never work.
A 1ltr car can be just as deadly in the hands of an inexperienced driver.
I learned to drive in a 1.3 escort and a 1.6 Primera, it wasn't cause i wanted more power than a 1ltr, it was the cars my parents had. (Also lots of parents pass on old cars to kids).

Or drive their parents cars til they leave home (as in my aunt's case and mine)

Senna wrote: »

Engine size wouldn't be as big a factor if we had proper training, starting of in secondary school and then a minimum amount of lessons needed before taking the test (at least 25 lessons)

I do agree, BUT, there's 2 million licences issued in this country. EVERY single person would have to be retested. Plus new drivers:eek::eek::eek:
How does a 90 week waiting list strike you??

Senna wrote: »

Also a tougher penalty points system for the first 3-5 years after passing the test.
eg. Breaking the speed limit in first year = One year ban

Why?? Are pissed old bastards safer while they bomb through small villages at 100 km/h

Senna wrote: »

You couldn't tell a 35yr that s/he not allowed to drive a 3ltr car cause s/he too young.:D

Nor could you tell a 23 year old with 4 kids that they can't have a Galaxy/Alhambra/C8. These anomalies exist in society. A 0.1l increase for each year experience is a ridiculous suggestion.

msg11

eringobragh wrote: »

Yourself being one of them

Huh? I have had 1 of 2 tests, I am talking about the folk that got license given too them just to clear the back log back in the day.

ninty9er

eringobragh wrote: »

The problem with low litre cars in they just can't cut it when overtaking for example, and inexperienced / untrained drivers don't seem to grasp this i've been forced into hard shoulder by someone in a fiesta overtaking against the wind and not enough poke to get by. Personally i wouldn't go any less than a 1.6 but thats not ideal for a learner.

I've just got a 1.6 and don't really notice the difference between the 1.0 in the normal course of driving, it just has the reserve there for when it's needed. I have overtaken in the 1.0, but it wasn't comfortable and the road had to stretch for MIIIIIIIIILES and it generally involved 2nd gear at 80-90km/h

1.0 cars should be banned outside of urban areas:D:D

Senna

ninty9er wrote: »

I do agree, BUT, there's 2 million licences issued in this country. EVERY single person would have to be retested. Plus new drivers:eek::eek::eek:
How does a 90 week waiting list strike you??

The way things are going, i cant see are roads being any safer in 10-20 years. If better training was introduced now, we would be in a better situation in the future.
It would be a nightmare to start a new system for all drivers on the roads at the moment, but we should be be looking at the future, as the current half-assed measures are'nt doing anything.

eringobragh

msg11 wrote: »

Lets not forget there are people on the roads that didnt even sit a test !!!

Your on a provisional right? :rolleyes:

msg11 wrote: »

Huh? I have had 1 of 2 tests, I am talking about the folk that got license given too them just to clear the back log back in the day.

1 of 2 tests? What on earth do you mean?