Menu
Join Create Your Garage or Sign in

Graduated Licence Proposal to Cut Young Driver Deaths

Cut young driver deaths via a graduated licence, zero alcohol limit and minimum learning period, IAM RoadSmart says.

 Why young drivers crash

Bold, practical steps must be taken to cut the number of young motorists killed and seriously injured on the road such as introducing a graduated licence that restricts behaviour, IAM RoadSmart advised the Government. Why? Because the number of collisions that involve young motorists is disproportionality high.

Director of Policy and Research, Neil Greig, explained why young people have more collisions than older, more experienced motorists.

‘The risk factors are well known', he said. ‘They include: lack of experience in all traffic conditions including rural roads, darkness, poor weather, distraction by peer passengers or mobile phones, and alcohol.’ The Government, therefore, needs to create a graduated licence that minimises such risk’, Neil Greig emphasised.

 Graduated Licence Proposal to Cut Young Driver Deaths Image 0

Graduated driving licence explained

The road safety charity further suggested how the graduated licence should work. Proposals include introducing a ‘post test phase’ that requires youngsters to take ‘refresher’ and ‘eco-driving’ lessons once they have passed the practical test to further optimise behaviour. There should be no other means to obtain a full licence.

The graduated licence should also impose further restrictions. Younger drivers should not be allowed to have more than one ‘peer passenger’, for instance. Peer passengers can be particularly distracting. However, there should be no restriction on the number of older passengers youngsters can carry.

 Graduated Licence Proposal to Cut Young Driver Deaths Image 1

Furthermore, graduated licence holders should not be permitted to get behind the wheel if they have consumed any alcohol. In other words, the associated drink-drive limit should be zero. Even a small amount of alcohol can impede performance. Other ideas to slash the number of youngsters killed include:

  • National Curriculum to include road safety training
  • 12 month minimum learning period
  • learners to complete an ‘online log’ before taking the practical test
  • test to include high speed driving (and rural roads)
  • no night time curfew as it would make it harder for youngsters to get experience, hurt the economy, limit employment opportunities, and be difficult to enforce.

Lack of action ‘disgraceful’

IAM RoadSmart’s Neil Greig added: ‘Successive governments have brushed this issue under the carpet. That is disgraceful. Road crashes are the biggest killer of young people today. However, it gets scant attention in terms of time and effort at the top level of Government - and in the media - compared to knife crime or drugs.’

‘It is time that the Government took this seriously. It must show that it cares for the young people of the UK by supporting fundamental changes to save these valuable young lives’, he stated.

Should this just be for young drivers? Perhaps enforcing this on all new drivers in their first year might be fairer? Also, I think there should be a zero tolerance on alcohol for all drivers regardless of age or experience. There are still people out there who think they are fit to drive after a night spent in the pub/club! Too many accidents are caused by persons with alcohol in their system even the day after.

Great sensible ideas. However. In the last 7000 miles of UK driving I have been followed by one marked police car. And you think they will check insurance, ownership, etc. Then think ah, young driver ....are the passengers older ? Etc etc. Good plan. Without inforcement it's as good as our speed limits. Ignored in the main part.

What a joke it's allready hard enough for young drivers as it is money wise lessons then when you pass insurance is a joke It actually makes me laugh because I bet if 100 older people redid there lessons/test about 60% of them would fail

If you are going to bring in graduated licences,it should be for new drivers not young new drivers. Whether you are 17 or 27 or 47, if you have just passed your test you have the same experience. This sounds very similar as the system in New Zealand and Australia, a system that works but is very difficult to enforce as it requires boots on the ground police to enforce and that is something we have a shortage of and they are better employed elsewhere than second guessing how long a person has been driving etc.

Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now. Also graduated licences should be applied to all new drivers!

Hi, and speaking as an older driver who passed my test years ago, I think your estimate is probably correct. I would like to see the percentages of accidents per age group of say 5 year bands. Bad habits get worse.. I'm happy to retake mine, and include night driving, slalom tests, brake tests too. Perhaps if the government and Insurance companies really considered this there should be a healthy discount on tests for younger drivers.

Riding scooters/motorbikes increases awareness on roads. I think before being allowed to drive 12 months riding experience on a scooter/motorbike would help drivers be more careful on roads. Then new drivers should be restricted to the power of cars they can drive(as with motorbikes) until they get a more advanced license. eg. 12 months - no car that can do 0-60 in under 10 secs can be driven. I don't believe that it is possible to enforce the 'more than one peer passenger' rule. I also think its a bit of a silly idea.

Perhaps Black Boxes could come to the rescue. All drivers would have to put their electronic key into the box, when driving. This could flag up to police that a car has a young / new driver. It would also limit maximum speeds and even incorporate a breathalyser. It could even bring the car to a gradual halt if being driven recklessly. Bit futuristic? perhaps? But we must no longer look on driving as a pleasure, but a task to be undertaken sensibly like work! However, You can enjoy work and particularly enjoy doing it well! The National Curriculum is already overloaded, leaving little time for discretionary teaching. Road safety training can and should be worked into the normal day both by teachers and parents when the opportunity arises, as should all safety training. People learn at different rates, stipulating 12 months is silly...But logging a minimum number of hours behind the wheel is sensible, as is some summer / winter / day / night driving. This should also cover the high speed / rural roads experience. Testing these things is not practical. Although appointing "super instructors" to countersign the experience is feasible and to be recommended..

Haven’t the police enough to do without enforcing this and I doubt they would actually have the man power or will for it experience is what’s needed not lots of red tape and complicated laws.

This is a good step and has taken far to long to be arrived at. It will make our roads safer and teach new drivers to respect the road needs to be carefully negotiated and remember the teaching they required to gain a licence. The graduated licence should be for all new drivers. The minimum 12 month learning again is an excellent idea but should be completed with a qualified ADI. It doesn't prevent others from providing the learner with additional driving time. To achieve the full licence further driving skills should be taken such as a minimum amount of motorway or dual carriageway driving at the maximum speeds stated, more rural road driving and a minimum amount of night driving on all roads plus skill training on a skid pan. I speak as a retired trained and registered DVLA driver assessor, a top level driving instructor, I taught persons to drive cars, buses and trucks upto the largest articulated lorries. So please bring a graduated licence scheme forward without delay and congratulations to the individual who has been brave enough to present the obvious need for change to gaining a full driving licence.

It's only a silly idea if you are not distracted by unruly and rowdy passengers who have been drinking. You, the driver, should not have been drinking. That does not stop your passengers from having too much, being rowdy and distracting the inexperienced driver.

All 3 of my children have made really good drivers who I have been happy and felt safe to sit beside even when learning, however their first cars have been small vans, just 1 passenger and low powered, I think this makes total sense.

Older drivers are even more likely to cause accidents due to being complacent, and are 50% more likely to drink and drive, they think they own the road. Most of these proposals would generate more income for government and make sure only relatively wealthy people can get a licence. Experience does not come in to the discussion because if older drivers had to retake there test today I guarantee that the majority would fail, ergo. Experience cannot be used as an excuse for what the senior people want. I would love to debate more with the correct people. The statistics of young driver accidents fails to mention how many older people are involved in the accident and also who's fault it is. These statistics have been manipulated for their own benefit. Thankyou good day.

It's not the age of drivers, it's the mentality that should be assessed. Too many bad drivers across the full spectrum. I have been driving for years and seen it all, even had to stop and assisted with a road fatality sad to say.

Who can blame young drivers for behaving irresponsibly behind the wheel when several recent TV ads show teens getting into a car, producing a guitar and having a lively singalong, laughing and joking etc as they drive along a mountain road?

Riding a motor cycle has greater vulnerability than driving a car. I was not allowed to have one but was allowed to learn to drive as soon as I was 17, Most of my lessons were in the dark evenings between September and May. Also once I had passed my test much of my driving was in the the dark Going to work in the early mornings of the years we did not put the clocks back. Also going to training meetings after work. Stopping me driving in the dark would have defeated the reason for learning to drive. What would be useful for young drivers might be intermediate cars with a top speed of say 50 mph for the first year of holding a licence.

What do you mean by Going to work in the early mornings of the years we did not put the clocks back, so you are telling us you are 101 years old and still riding your motor bike??? The reason I say this is the clocks started to be altered from GMT to BST etc in 1918. So I take it you are not a damn biker that's a Motor biker or peddle biker in London that a biker decides they can jump traffic light's and use the bus lane as it is only there for cars, buses etc.

What Utter crap try reading my posting above

I know older first time drivers who have passed their test and have no clue about modern conditions. It is the same for some of the foreigners who come over and use their country's driving licence. I see nome Eastern Europeans who have motors with huge power and who drive like loons because their insurance is not in this country and if prosecuted will pop home and come back with a new identity . How about changing the rules on the test. Theory is one thing but the test should also include motorway and dual carriageways. Other things need to be addressed like skid pan training or a device like being strapped into a trolley and brought to a sudden stop to simulate a low speed crash. When my daughter learned to drive I made her learn how to remove a tyre, check all fluids , listen for warning signs of failing components, flat tyres etc. etc. Cars are safe...ish these days and many youngsters may learn how to steer, brake etc but they do not know the limits in various conditions. When my daughter took her test it had snowed, thawed and frozen and partially thawed again she was told by the examiner to speed up. She told him that she was driving according to the conditions. Maybe examiners are at fault.

Yeah yeah, and pedestrians should wear body armour, go pro's and be insured to walk next to the road. You know because people on foot can cause accidents too. It is all another way to stop young people from having anything. Look at brexit! At the end of the day this is a feeler. To see if the majority of people will back government, funny that mainly older people do? (Sheeple)