Learners to be allowed on motorways

[Zoe]

http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/post/2011/12/motorway-plan-for-learner-drivers/

Mike Penning has announced a plan to allow learners to have lessons on motorways but only with an ADI. There are two sides to this. On one hand it's good that they will have some training but should you really be allowing someone that hasn't demonstrated their competence to an examiner to drive on a motorway?

 

[Oswyntail]

I think this is the wrong way round. Only when one has passed ones test should one then be allowed to have lessons with an ADI on the Mway, and then only allowed to drive "solo" on said roads when one has passed a second test. If you never wish to use a motorway, you don't need the test.

 

[Mojo]

This seems fair enough to me. I always thought it was a bit bizarre that the day before passing your test, in a dual-control car, with a qualified instructor, you cannot pass your test, but the day after, on your own, you can. Just like how my instructor knew I was competent enough to be driving at 70mph on a dual carriageway rather than down a cul-de-sac at <10mph I would expect their professional judgement to let them know when their 'student' is ready to take the Motorway.

 

[GB]

I have never understood the issue with learners and motroways. Motorways are the easiest and probably safest roads you can be on and if you can do dual carriage ways then there shouldn't be a problem with M roads.

You should already grasp the basics through theory anyway.

 

[37372]

I've always thought that just before a learner is ready to take their test, they should be taken onto the motorway. Maybe just from one junction to another, exit, then back up the opposite side but just enough to give them that little bit of experience and confidence. I never went on the motorway before passing my test last year but now I have driven all over the country along motorways.

 

[90019]

I think this is the wrong way round. Only when one has passed ones test should one then be allowed to have lessons with an ADI on the Mway, and then only allowed to drive "solo" on said roads when one has passed a second test. If you never wish to use a motorway, you don't need the test.

QFT.

I find it startling that people are allowed onto motorways in a car with either no formal training whatsoever, or maybe having been on dual carriageways.

Motorways are the easiest[/B] and probably safest roads you can be on

This seems obvious, but the number of people who are apparently incapable of using motorways correctly, mostly by lane hogging, suggests this isn't the case.

 

[table38]

If it educates people to stop sitting in lane 2 doing 65 mph while the traffic tails back behind them, then I'm all for it.

 

[GB]

QFT.

I find it startling that people are allowed onto motorways in a car with either no formal training whatsoever, or maybe having been on dual carriageways.

To take it even further, no formal training (or any training at all) is actually a requirement before you sit your test and thus drive a car if you pass.

 

[Greenback]

I think Oswyntail ha smade the best suggestion on what should happen. Prove your competence on lower speed roads before you are let loose on high speed ones.

 

[SS4]

Oswyntail makes a good suggestion but I'm worried about the cost for new drivers who are already likely to be hit with high insurance and the test itself isn't cheap. Free (ie: included in the test price) or a nominal charge would probably entice more drivers into taking the test.

What does seem out of place is that afaik a learner can drive on 70mph roads which are not motorway such as country lanes which are surely far more dangerous than motorways

 

[Greenback]

Oswyntail makes a good suggestion but I'm worried about the cost for new drivers who are already likely to be hit with high insurance and the test itself isn't cheap. Free (ie: included in the test price) or a nominal charge would probably entice more drivers into taking the test.

What does seem out of place is that afaik a learner can drive on 70mph roads which are not motorway such as country lanes which are surely far more dangerous than motorways

All roads are dangerous. It's the nature of the danger, and the scale of consequences, that can be variable

As for the cost, if it discourages people from rushing out and learning to drive/buying a car as soon as they turn 17, I'm in favour of it!

 

[SS4]

All roads are dangerous. It's the nature of the danger, and the scale of consequences, that can be variable

True, so why not allow learners on motorways?

As for the cost, if it discourages people from rushing out and learning to drive/buying a car as soon as they turn 17, I'm in favour of it!

If this isn't ageism could someone remind me of the actual definition? I understand that young drivers are statistically more likely to be in an accident but they already pay for that in insurance premiums. I also understand that this would be a cost for new drivers regardless of age so why the 17 comment?

 

[Yew]

To take it even further, no formal training (or any training at all) is actually a requirement before you sit your test and thus drive a car if you pass.

But if you pass your test without formal training, you have demonstrated you have skills of the required standard to pass the test.


Personally, I took a pass plus course, that had some time on evil country roads, motoraways, big cities (well, maybe not BIG cities, but bigger than my town) night driving, bad weather, and some other thing that I cant remember. The main reason I did it was to get some lower insurance (that didnt pay off) but im glad Ive done it as I would have been terrified going on a motorway by myself for the first time (instead of realising its just a dual carrigeway with an extra lane for idiots doing 90mph) The 4 lane bit of the M1 is good though

 

[90019]

What does seem out of place is that afaik a learner can drive on 70mph roads which are not motorway such as country lanes which are surely far more dangerous than motorways

NSL single carriageway roads are 60mph no 70, but there are plenty that aren't safe to do that speed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What does seem out of place is that afaik a learner can drive on 70mph roads which are not motorway such as country lanes which are surely far more dangerous than motorways

Country lanes have a 60mph limit, not 70. But yes, it's silly isn't it? anyone with any sense on such roads will drive at a speed which will allow them to stop in half the distance they can see, but there are people who say "The limit is 60 so I'm going to do 60!"

Anyway, back on topic...

In some parts of the country it is possible to legally experience motorway conditions as a learner; the A3 between Hook ( Chessington ) and Guildford is a good example; it's an A road so learners are permitted, but it is three lanes with a hard shoulder. It's a motorway in all but name.

 

[90019]

The 4 lane bit of the M1 is good though

I was on that bit heading North earlier this year, when it was quiet. It was interesting doing 85 and still being the slowest car on the road

 

[SS4]

NSL single carriageway roads are 60mph no 70, but there are plenty that aren't safe to do that speed.

Country lanes have a 60mph limit, not 70. But yes, it's silly isn't it? anyone with any sense on such roads will drive at a speed which will allow them to stop in half the distance they can see, but there are people who say "The limit is 60 so I'm going to do 60!"
.

Cheers guys I know very little about driving (and no I don't hold a licence so the roads of Birmingham are safe )

 

[Yew]

As for the cost, if it discourages people from rushing out and learning to drive/buying a car as soon as they turn 17, I'm in favour of it!

Why is that?

 

[Greenback]

True, so why not allow learners on motorways?

Because the consequences of an accident are far more severe. There are seldom eight car pile ups on country lanes. The possibility of injuring or killing others is much higher on a three lane motorway than on a single track lane.

If this isn't ageism could someone remind me of the actual definition? I understand that young drivers are statistically more likely to be in an accident but they already pay for that in insurance premiums. I also understand that this would be a cost for new drivers regardless of age so why the 17 comment?

I mention 17 because that is the age where someone can first apply for a provisional licence. It is also an age where the person is unlikely to be earning a lot of money. If it is even more expensive to learn to drive, as a consequence of having to sit an extra test at some point, then that is bound to act to discourage some people of that age from taking lessons - they may decide to wait until they are a bit older and earning a bit more.

This will mean less cars on the road, and I am in favour of reducing the number of cars on the road, no matter what the age of the driver. I am not being ageist.

 

[Zoe]

This will mean less cars on the road, and I am in favour of reducing the number of cars on the road, no matter what the age of the driver. I am not being ageist.

These days many 18 year olds go to university so by the time they have passed the test and got a car they will only have a year or so to use it before they go to university where in at least some cases they wouldn't be able to afford to run a car. If the age for driving was 18 then it may will discourage some from taking lessons until after university.

 

[Yew]

These days many 18 year olds go to university so by the time they have passed the test and got a car they will only have a year or so to use it before they go to university where in at least some cases they wouldn't be able to afford to run a car. If the age for driving was 18 then it may will discourage some from taking lessons until after university.

on the other hand, some people who might commute to a nearby university, might be forced to live at uni. I have a friend who goes to Nottingham Uni, and drives every day from mansfield. If he had to take other transport, then his commute goes from an hour, to two hours on rush hour trains and busses. (he prefers 158's to 156's btw, as he decided to train it in all the snow last year)

And do nt forget people who might be on an a college course, and may have a placement, and hence have to pass on a preferred placement, as they cant rea\listically get there

 

[SS4]

There are also some entry positions that all but require your own vehicle and shift work for those over 18.

 

[Whistler40145]

It fills me with dread at the thought of learner drivers on Motorways.

IMHO the Practical Test should be in two sections comprising non Motorway driving and a additional test for Motorway driving.

 

[mumrar]

It fills me with dread at the thought of learner drivers on Motorways.

IMHO the Practical Test should be in two sections comprising non Motorway driving and a additional test for Motorway driving.

I see no reason it should fill you with dread, as I recall it will only be learners accompanied by qualified instructors, rather than Billy and his Dad. I know somebody who passed their test and wouldn't use a motorway for four years after, because they were scared - that's s situation we cannot have amongst licensed drivers.

 

[Ferret]

I see no reason it should fill you with dread, as I recall it will only be learners accompanied by qualified instructors, rather than Billy and his Dad. I know somebody who passed their test and wouldn't use a motorway for four years after, because they were scared - that's s situation we cannot have amongst licensed drivers.

Good on them for taking the sensible option and not using the motorway - the right choice if not feeling comfortable. Only last night I saw 3 examples of awful driving on the M6, and I was only on it from Coventry-Castle Brom!

I think that motorway driving should form part of the driving test - too many people haven't got a clue how to drive on these fast roads and it is scary that they are allowed to.

 

[GB]

Because the consequences of an accident are far more severe. There are seldom eight car pile ups on country lanes. The possibility of injuring or killing others is much higher on a three lane motorway than on a single track lane.

I'd disagree with that. You are far more likely to be involved in a serious collision on A or B roads than you are on M roads and statistically M roads are the safest.

 

[Zoe]

I'd disagree with that. You are far more likely to be involved in a serious collision on A or B roads than you are on M roads and statistically M roads are the safest.

Doesn't the fact the learners are prohibited make them safer?

 

[GB]

That can't be quantified so it's difficult to say. But there are plenty of qualified drivers on the motorways that have sub standard ability so it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[Butts]

That can't be quantified so it's difficult to say. But there are plenty of qualified drivers on the motorways that have sub standard ability so it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

I agree with this starting with 90% of Women Drivers and !00% of "Weekend Drivers" (Male or Female)

 

[Oswyntail]

I agree with this starting with ...100% of "Weekend Drivers" (Male or Female)

Weekend Drivers - don't get me started. These are the slimy gits in their company cars whose weekday driving consists of 250 yards each way to the station car park, then feel they can clog up town streets with their awful driving. BMW/Audi/Merc. At least the "little ladies" in the Chelsea tractors sometimes drive to the shops as well as the school/ballet/pony run.