Stupid young male drivers: how can we stop them?

Dannyg90

whatever about all theses young stupid male drivers, the driving in this country is overall very bad and a lot of what i see on the road that i class to be dangerous is from older drivers who think they have so much experience they don't need to pay attention to what they're doing.
On a daily basis i come across so many idiots who can't use an indicator properly whether not indicating at all or too late, people who think its ok to stop in the middle of the road to have a chat, people who think just because they indicate on a motorway they have the right to pull into any lane they like without looking forcing me to slow right down or id be smashing into the back of them which id be called at fault for.
I see this so often i can't comprehend how so many of these people have licenses and the if the Guards had any sense they'd start giving tickets for all these kinds of offences which might make people stop and think before they go speeding off down the road

GastroBoy

MY IDEA

Make it so the cars they have have a restricted speed limit of, say 60km ph, until they reach the age of 30, and hopefully will have developed some form of maturity

--Kaiser--

kylith wrote: »

From this review


Just noticed that it's a US site, but mph is mph.

That's the ST which is a sports model and not, as you mentioned, a family saloon

OldNotWIse

This may lead to an onslaught of bleeding heart posts but as someone who was nearly orphaned at the age of 14 when my parents were almost killed by joyriding f*ckers, I couldnt give a toss if these people want to kill themselves - it's the innocent drivers coming towards them that I feel sorry for.

Gets coat

OldNotWIse

robbie7730 wrote: »

Young males take higher risks in all aspects of life than any other section. You see that as an excuse, I see it as an established and common sense fact.

What happens when this urge to take risks affects other people's safety?

CruelCoin

kylith wrote: »

From this review


Just noticed that it's a US site, but mph is mph.

Thats a hot hatch sports version.

Not a "bring the kiddies to school mobile"

Not the same thing.

CruelCoin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What happens when this urge to take risks affects other people's safety?

The very moment you set a car into motion you are not "safe".

At what point does being safe become unsafe? 30kmph? 40? 50/60/70?

And who is safety judged by? Unelected civil servants who base their projections on meaningless figures.

Stats can be bent. 1 man has his head in a freezer, the other his head in a furnace. On average they are comfortable! Long story short, your version of safe is very different from my version.

kylith

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

That's the ST which is a sports model and not, as you mentioned, a family saloon

Terribly sorry that I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of car models. A top speed of 120mph then.

--Kaiser--

kylith wrote: »

Terribly sorry that I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of car models. A top speed of 120mph then.

Youd don't seem to know much about them if you think a bog standard car can reach 150 mph. As for that 120 mph, you'd be a while getting there. Effectively it would have a top speed of about 100 (which is still very fast for a public road)

OldNotWIse

CruelCoin wrote: »

The very moment you set a car into motion you are not "safe".

At what point does being safe become unsafe? 30kmph? 40? 50/60/70?

And who is safety judged by? Unelected civil servants who base their projections on meaningless figures.

Stats can be bent. 1 man has his head in a freezer, the other his head in a furnace. On average they are comfortable! Long story short, your version of safe is very different from my version.

Just because something is not 100% risk-free does not justify the taking of unnecessary risks. Surgery is not without possible complictions - that doesn't mean a doctor should be reckless or take unnecessary, intentional risks.

My parents were hardly "safe" when joyriding thugs crashed into them on a lonely rural road and wrote off the car, nearly killing both. Roof had to be cut off to get my mother out. Months spent in hospital. Family business down the tube. Do you think that they should have to accept that experience as "a risk they were willing to take"? My a*se they do. If those ****bags had not been driving mammys car (without insurance of course), drunk and over the speed limit on a rural road they had no reason to be on aside from the fact that they thought they might get a clear stretch of "runway" there without someone ratting on them, my parents would not have been nearly killed.

Bruthal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What happens when this urge to take risks affects other people's safety?

In what context are you asking this? Its like you think im a 20 year old boy racer.

ScumLord

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Youd don't seem to know much about them if you think a bog standard car can reach 150 mph. As for that 120 mph, you'd be a while getting there.

A lot of modern cars probably could reach those speeds with a few slight modifications. Even your standard HDi 1.6 engine with some reprograming and a few new parts could reach those speeds.

Many cars these days have the exact same engine in them they just power them differently for bigger or smaller cars. HDi engines in particular have something like an extra 30% of power available to them (or is that 30HP?) if you reprogram the ECU. Make a few minor changes to the exhust, air intake and turbo and you can gain more horsepower.

Modern cars are highly restricted.

CruelCoin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Just because something is not 100% risk-free does not justify the taking of unnecessary risks. Surgery is not without possible complictions - that doesn't mean a doctor should be reckless or take unnecessary, intentional risks.

My parents were hardly "safe" when joyriding thugs crashed into them on a lonely rural road and wrote off the car, nearly killing both. Roof had to be cut off to get my mother out. Months spent in hospital. Family business down the tube. Do you think that they should have to accept that experience as "a risk they were willing to take"? My a*se they do. If those ****bags had not been driving mammys car (without insurance of course), drunk and over the speed limit on a rural road they had no reason to be on aside from the fact that they thought they might get a clear stretch of "runway" there without someone ratting on them, my parents would not have been nearly killed.

I don't scuba dive absent the knowledge every dive may kill me.
I don't drive thinking i'm wrapped in a bubble.

If they chose to partake in activity with risks, then they must know there is a chance they will succumb to those risks!

No amount of safety bs is going to remove risk from driving.

Example: I would very comfortably argue that my reaction times and cognitive abilities after 6 pints are greater than those of a sober 70 year old. Yet, i'm lambasted as the eater of babies, and they're praised as paragons of society!

The argument of "speed kills", neatly ignores the ability of the driver, wakefullness, cognitive ability, eyesight, car performance (suspension, brakes etc).

To tar-brush all young drivers as dangerous based on speed alone, is flawed thinking at best.

--Kaiser--

Some partial solutions I have:

a) Longer and harder driving tests that include motorway driving, skid-pans etc...Irish driving tests are an absolute joke

b) Harsher penalties for all types of motoring misdemeanour's - using the phone, dangerously modifying a car even not using indicators

c) Improved roads - putting a 'Black Spot' sign where there have been many accidents is NOT a solution, fixing what makes it dangerous is

d) More places like Mondello for people to drive around the track

ScumLord

CruelCoin wrote: »

The argument of "speed kills", neatly ignores the ability of the driver, wakefullness, cognitive ability, eyesight, car performance (suspension, brakes etc).

I'll come up behind someone doing 70 -90klm having a full on conversation with their passenger, spending more time looking at them or out the window than at the road, swerving around the road yet when I pass them out I'm considered the more dangerous driver.

Driving slower doesn't make driving automatically safer.

CruelCoin

ScumLord wrote: »

I'll come up behind someone doing 70 -90klm having a full on conversation with their passenger, spending more time looking at them or out the window than at the road, swerving around the road yet when I pass them out I'm considered the more dangerous driver.

Driving slower doesn't make driving automatically safer.

Or another example: People with babies on board stickers swerving all over the place at 50kmh while struggling to control their kids.

OldNotWIse

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't scuba dive absent the knowledge every dive may kill me.
I don't drive thinking i'm wrapped in a bubble.

If they chose to partake in activity with risks, then they must know there is a chance they will succumb to those risks!

No amount of safety bs is going to remove risk from driving.

Example: I would very comfortably argue that my reaction times and cognitive abilities after 6 pints are greater than those of a sober 70 year old. Yet, i'm lambasted as the eater of babies, and they're praised as paragons of society!

The argument of "speed kills", neatly ignores the ability of the driver, wakefullness, cognitive ability, eyesight, car performance (suspension, brakes etc).

To tar-brush all young drivers as dangerous based on speed alone, is flawed thinking at best.

So you think they should be absolved of responsibility simply because my parents "took a risk"? Do you think a woman who is raped on her way home from a club is culpable because she took a risk? Would you absolve the rapist of his crime? You are essentially arguing the point of contributory negligence which is defined as behaving in a way that demonstrates a reckless regard for one's own safety. The only time that can be argued even in court is for the likes of knowingly and willingly getting into a car with someone who has been drinking, not wearing a seatbelt etc (and even in those cases, the prosecution still remained but the plaintiffs suffered a % reduction in compensation to allow for contributory negligence) Simply geting into your car and driving does not absolve other people of their duty to be good road users, and it certainly does not make you culpable should someone elses's reckless behaviour affect you.

Bruthal

CruelCoin wrote: »

The argument of "speed kills", neatly ignores the ability of the driver, wakefullness, cognitive ability, eyesight, car performance (suspension, brakes etc).

The argument of the "ability of the driver" neatly ignores the possibility of sudden unexpected occurrences that can happen on roads, which is made more dangerous by speeding.

ScumLord

CruelCoin wrote: »

Or another example: People with babies on board stickers swerving all over the place at 50kmh while struggling to control their kids.

Or doing 70klm on a main road giving out about people breaking the speed limit then they proceed to do 70 through every town they pass through, it's just the speed they do.

kylith

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Youd don't seem to know much about them if you think a bog standard car can reach 150 mph. As for that 120 mph, you'd be a while getting there. Effectively it would have a top speed of about 100 (which is still very fast for a public road)

My point still stands. What reason is there for a bog standard car to be able to reach speeds well in excess of speed limits? How many people need to do 100+mph while they're going to Tesco or dropping the kids off?

CruelCoin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So you think they should be absolved of responsibility simply because my parents "took a risk"? Do you think a woman who is raped on her way home from a club is culpable because she took a risk? Would you absolve the rapist of his crime? You are essentially arguing the point of contributory negligence which is defined as behaving in a way that demonstrates a reckless regard for one's own safety. The only time that can be argued even in court is for the likes of knowingly and willingly getting into a car with someone who has been drinking, not wearing a seatbelt etc (and even in those cases, the prosecution still remained but the plaintiffs suffered a % reduction in compensation to allow for contributory negligence) Simply geting into your car and driving does not absolve other people of their duty to be good road users, and it certainly does not make you culpable should someone elses's reckless behaviour affect you.

If you walk home alone from a club in your skimpy clubbing outfit thinking you're completely safe, then you're living in a dreamworld. Did she asked to be raped, no (who would), but she does however open herself up the the possibility.
Everything you do has risks.
Your and others solutions for the solving of the speed issue would penalise the many young people who don't partake in that sort of behaviour.
You're never going to make the roads 100% safe. I seldom drink, i drive a good car, i have good eyesight. Where do you get off labelling me as a boy-racer based on my age alone?

CruelCoin

robbie7730 wrote: »

The argument of the "ability of the driver" neatly ignores the possibility of sudden unexpected occurrences that can happen on roads, which is made more dangerous by speeding.

Indeed.

Say a car pulls out suddenly in front of you.

As has happened to me before, i apply the brakes hard, and swerve to avoid the car.
The average granny for example, locks up, screeches and goes PAF into the car.

This is where cognitive ability and reaction times comes in.

OldNotWIse

CruelCoin wrote: »

If you walk home alone from a club in your skimpy clubbing outfit thinking you're completely safe, then you're living in a dreamworld. Did she asked to be raped, no (who would), but she does however open herself up the the possibility.
Everything you do has risks.
Your and others solutions for the solving of the speed issue would penalise the many young people who don't partake in that sort of behaviour.
You're never going to make the roads 100% safe. I seldom drink, i drive a good car, i have good eyesight. Where do you get off labelling me as a boy-racer based on my age alone?

Do me a favour and actually read MY posts before you throw accusations at me yeah?

Bruthal

CruelCoin wrote: »

Indeed.

Say a car pulls out suddenly in front of you.

As has happened to me before, i apply the brakes hard, and swerve to avoid the car.
The average granny for example, locks up, screeches and goes PAF into the car.

This is where cognitive ability and reaction times comes in.

Its happened to me many times too. Many drivers think its their high skill level that avoided the crash. But luck is involoved. If they pull out 1 second later, can you stop then? Or if you are going 30kph faster?

In the event of a crash in the above scenario, the granny doing 50kph is far more likely to survive, along with the car occupant(s) that pulled out, than if the 120kph skilled driver hits them.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but why aren't cars limited to ~140kph anyway? There's no lawful reason why an ordinary driver needs a car that goes in excess of 200kph.

Because "I don't see the need to, personally" is never, ever a good basis for "therefore nobody should be allowed to"

DylanII

kylith wrote: »

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but why aren't cars limited to ~140kph anyway? There's no lawful reason why an ordinary driver needs a car that goes in excess of 200kph.

Last month I was in my dads car, he was driving at 180km/h on a motorway, it was at about 4am after my friend had seriously hurt himself with blood rushing from his head. We were a fair distance from a hospital, as we were down the country, if we had of waited for an ambulance or drove at 120km/h it could have been much more serious.

Imagine being in a situation where every minute counts, having a long drive and your car is restricted. Okay, so that doesn't happen too often but I just dont think restricting cars is a good idea.


Im an 18 year old male. I dont drive a particularly big car, its a 2 door 1.6 petrol focus, but its not a really slow car either. I dont feel the need to drive fast and take risks to show off. Okay I do drive fast sometimes, maybe 60 in a 50 area or 120 on the m50 or 130 on the M4. But I will always make sure I can see properly ahead Im always able to stop where I can see clear. I am a careful driver, when driving I dont focus on anything else, I dont talk on the phone, eat my lunch, have a coffee or read the newspaper (I seen a middle ages woman doing that in the middle lane of the m50 two weeks ago). I slow down at any sign of potential trouble. I probably drive faster than most, but yet most of my friends would say they feel safer in my car than a slower or more mature driver.

I can see where people get the idea of boy racers from though, when you see these young fellas in their 95 civics, taking corners at speed with no indicators and looking around laughing with 5 people in the car and those stupid noises from their exhausts. To make it worse they cars are as safe as a cardboard box, if they crash they're fu*ked!

Bruthal

CruelCoin wrote: »

Stats can be bent. 1 man has his head in a freezer, the other his head in a furnace. On average they are comfortable.

Freezer at -20c, furnace at 1000c, average 490c, not too comfortable that:pac:

ScumLord

robbie7730 wrote: »

In the event of a crash in the above scenario, the granny doing 50kph is far more likely to survive, along with the car occupant(s) that pulled out, than if the 120kph skilled driver hits them.

The granny is more likely to be the one that pulls out in front of you.

An experienced driver should know to slow down at junctions like that if they know they're there or can see one up ahead. In most cases you can see the car at the junction and can often tell what their intentions are.

You also have to always drive under the assumption that every other driver on the road is a moron that's actively trying to kill you.

Bruthal

ScumLord wrote: »

The granny is more likely to be the one that pulls out in front of you.

An experienced driver should know to slow down at junctions like that if they know they're there or can see one up ahead. In most cases you can see the car at the junction and can often tell what their intentions are.

If a person is speeding, and the unexpected happens, is what i am saying.
If a driver is speeding, they wont be slowing down much at junctions now, will they?

Take a drive along any national road, and see how many slow down at every lesser road onto it. Im sure most of them are experienced.

You also have to always drive under the assumption that every other driver on the road is a moron

Not much assuming needed on our roads.

Scioch

Cars dont have to go that fast or be that powerful. Stopping allowing manufacturers to make and sell law breaking death traps to kids and the problem would soon go away.

Like handing guns to kids then wondering why people are getting shot. Stop selling the fcukin guns.