Should there be an age limit on the Size of car you can drive?

An Insignia is in no way powerful.

Whether its true or not about brain not fully developing until 25, I still fail to see why you think young person (with non fully developed brain) would be better off in small car?

There is already an age limit in place depending on engine size. Its called car insurance.

And btw a Volkswagen Polo is just as quick as an Opel Insignia. Would you have said the same if it was a Polo she was driving? Probably not

It's not what you drive, it's how you drive. What about HGV's, farm and construction equipment? If nobody under thirty could operate those the economy would screech to a halt.

The most recent bad crash in this country I can remember was a Peugeot 306 with 4 people in the back and 2 in the front, none wearing seat belts, 5 thrown out of the car when it crashed, 2 sadly died, it was doing an estimated 121km/h in a 50km/h limit urban area. Driver and passengers were all under 25. Existing laws in place ignored, no need for any additional laws in this case.

Yes, smaller cars might have the same safety technology as bigger ones, and they might come up in crash tests equally good, and they even might be as safe as bigger ones when hitting stationary objects like wall or tree.

However in an accident between two vehicles where one is small and light and other is big and heavy, it's always the smaller one which will be liable to much higher forces and therefore bigger damage and bigger risk to occupants. Simple understanding of rule of conservation of momentum will just show you, that head on collision between 1tonne vehicle and 2 tonne vehicle both going at 50km/h, will have much more severe consequences for small one comparing to big one. Forces involved might be up to 4 times stronger from small car in case of such collision, and that might be a difference between life and death.

Are you suggesting that whoever drives larger vehicle owns the road ?

Strange thought process you've going on there!

A 16 year old may drive a tractor with up to 2 trailers.

An 18 year old may drive an articulated truck.

A 21 year old may drive a bus with up to 110 passengers.

....yet you think 24 year olds should be limited to tiny cars?

And I did an A licence, passed, restricted for 2yrs,.. but didn't have a bike, and only bought one when I was unrestricted.

There will always to ways to cheat the system, I'm currently getting my other half to do a C licence, so, she will automatically get a T, which will entitle her to a BE (eventually)

Just like she did an A test, never drove a bike since, but now can (legally) drive a superbike

I did C &D over 10yrs ago, never driven either since, but I have grandfather rights to a CPC.

Learn the law, read up on what's coming down the line.. Work the system.

You are just shooting from the hip now.

You started out getting upset because you saw some young woman making a mistake driving a normal family saloon and calling for restrictions on all young people.

Now you have escalated it to tractor, bus and truck drivers.

Several posters have pointed out flaws in your suggestions, why not address their points and we could actually have a discussion ?

If they are such death traps they should be banned for all drivers.

Consider testing drivers ever 3 to 5 years to be excessive. What would be the point? Do people forget how to drive after a couple of years?

Testing every 3 to 5 years would be overkill and could lead to all sorts of issues.

For instance if someone who needs their car failed the test there could be serious repercussions for work or family until they got to re-sit.

Removing something that is vital to someone's life when they have done nothing wrong would be a big step.

Perhaps some sort of refresher module like the CPC to bring drivers up to date with legislation and safety initiatives could be considered where just taking part would fulfill the obligation.

I know a lot of truckers are cynical about the CPC but if everyone had to do something similar they might not feel singled out.

If someone fails their test, they shouldn’t be driving. There could be very serious repercussions for the people that have to share the road with that driver.

Regular retraining and retesting is a standard approach for maintaining skills in many areas- medicine, legal, financial, pilot- why not driving?

They struggle to provide a service for those taking a test and you think they should massively increase the number of tests every year?

you think a lack of theory is the issue with peoples driving?

I've been banging on for years advocating routine re-testing of drivers, but I recognise that that's utterly impractical as the driver testing system is set up at the moment.

However, possession of a current Driver Theory Test Certificate at time of licence renewal wouldn't be an overly onerous requirement. They're valid for 2 years, which gives plenty of time for acquiring one, and at least it'd make people do a bit of revision on the current ROTR.

Full road test to get your licence back after a ban, irrespective of whether it was applied by the courts or as a result of accumulating enough points !!!

Very black and white in your approach as usual.

What you are really proposing is taking the right to drive from random citizens who have no medical issues, no driving convictions and possibly an accident free driving record for many years.

This is all suggested as a means to make the roads safer with no evidence that it would.

Yes I know that and I mentioned it in my post.

I've had my ears bent by by a good few HGV drivers complaining about them.

Maybe some sort of online module could be developed.

Unless someone is keen to ride a motorcycle straight away, there's a loophole in that system. I've never had a motorbike, have no desire to have one and haven't had my arse on the seat of a one since I passed the test many years ago. Although I've no experience of riding one (apart from 3 lessons on a driving school bike) I would be legally entitled to go out tomorrow and ride a very powerful machine as the years required just ticked by without use..

I don't agree on the age part, (or on the N plate either for that matter). Logically, it's a pass / fail test, and after that it's almost impossible to infer the quality of someone's driving based on age (or 2 yr time limit).

In the first year I after passing my test, I drove 10X the distance my mother did annually. But 90% of that was on quiet motorway where one could argue I didn't learn much about city driving, and the reverse could be said too for someone else. Timeline are just completely arbitrary driver to driver, and IMO seriously devalue the actual test itself, if the passage of time is seen as important too.

As for graduated licenses, I'm all for it, if based on an actual test. Passing you test in a Micra should not automatically qualify you to drive an XC90 for example. The physical size is one thing, but more importantly visibility is limited in a larger vehicle, and the potential to do harm to others is much higher too. This is well known, and is already reflected in insurance premiums, and should be reflected in the testing methodology too.

Now that's something that needs looking at urgently...seriously heavy duty agriculture tractors pulling massive trailers and slurry tanks, etc. with 16/17 year old drivers behind the wheel. This time of year, they are on the roads a lot, and its something else to meet one , especially on a bend on a narrow country road. They can legally do this on the tractor licence class W, at 16 years. This is crazy when you see the rules and regulations involved in getting a car licence.