http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20376088

After all these decades, the ABI seem to have a lot of influence all of a sudden

It will make little difference. Most people buy a car so they can take girlfriends or boyfriends out in the car. End that and you end the reason for many to take the test. Or to delay it for them. This looks like a government flapping around passing laws to be see to be doing something.

'Yes officer, this teenager with a different second name and skin colour to me IS my brother. One of us is adopted.'

All this does is penalise responsible young drivers, all for the sake of targeting a few chavs who will probably ignore the law anyway.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

Next there will be a Daily Mail article about the numbers of adoptions and the state of the nation.

+1
A lot of teenage boys are in crashes, not because they can't drive, but because they choose to drive like aggressive yobs once they've passed their test. Why should the ones that don't be punished?

This was introduced a couple of years ago in Germany.

Previously young people could take their driving test at 18. The government introduced new legislation to allow them to take their test at 17, but for the first year, they must drive with a designated passenger in the car (not necessarily a family member, but over 25 and with a clean licence, they can have up to 4 passengers, I think, on the list). My girlfriend and I were listed for her daughters.

During the first year, they must have one of these named drivers in the car with them at all times (in the front passenger seat and they must be sober). Alcohol level for both driver and registered passenger is 0 pro mil.

The eldest daughter did it during the test phase of the new law and it was so successful, that they introduced it as a permanent law change in time for the youngest daughter to take her test.

The youngest daughter is now 18 and has started her apprenticeship and is reliant on a car, so it is good that she took the test with 17.

So far, the number of accidents with serious injury or death among drivers who took the test at 17 and did the one year of accompanied driving has dropped substantially, compare to those taking the test at 18 and being able to drive straight away on their own.

The biggest cause of death and injury among young drivers is a full car, at night, on the way to/from a party, where the good atmosphere in the car affects their concentration (when they aren't drunk) and they either drive too fast or simply lose control and hit something solid, often a tree or lamppost.

I think I would support this. Though I passed my test then didn't drive for three years, so how would that work for me?

A separate issue, but having driven to work the past few months, older drivers pick up terrible and hazardous habits. I would very much support a retest every five years.

For the first part, that is part of the problem, if you don't drive again, then you lose the benefit of the year of accompanied driving.

As to the retest, that is something I have always been in favour of. 5 years is a bit short, although a good idea. I think 10 years until 60 / 65, then every 5 years.

I think we might actually do this? Don't you have to do some form of retest at 70 (when your licence runs out) before you can get it extended? Don't know if it's a full test though.

I got my license when I was 19. I didn't drive a car until I was 22 or so. When Ingot behind the wheel, it was during my summer holidays. I drove every day with my grandad for a week. The followig week, my old driving instructor did a few lessons for me (essentially passplus but without the certificate) and inbetween lessons I drove with my grandad. By the time I went back to uni, I was massively more comfortable in driving. Bear in mind this was Birmingham so horrendous to drive it anyway. I disagree with the idea of "family only" because it means I wouldn't have been able to have a driving instructor with me in my own car! I'd be in favour of "must be over 25 and an intact license" for a compulsory passenger. But a year? Might be a bit much. Why not compulsory passplus or similar? Say must have passplus course to get insurance so can drive.

I think 'a person over 25 with a clean license' is a better idea.

Rather than making Passplus compulsory, it should be rolled in to the normal driving test.

No, you just have to apply every year and if you haven't been involved in an accident, it's rubber stamped iirc.

I'd be happy with them keeping the learner restrictions until their 18th birthday, but there should be no legal restrictions on adults driving.

Maybe if they are found to have caused a crash in their first year after passing,they'd have to take their test again.

My mother is 70+ and gave up her driving licence after an incident. Medical related, not a stroke, but a TIA. Now lives closer to my sister and I, in her own place but with some support.
There are others close by who are older and still drive, who she won't get in a car with. I think the test/medical should be stricter.

I actually think that there should be a restriction like this in place for younger drivers, I remember what it was like when I was 18-19, most of my peers (and me) had prangs when in the first years. Not alcohol related in some cases. You do take risks as we get older, but you know your limits. This is where booze is a problem, you lose perspective.

The german model big_D talks of seems a good start. One passenger only or an older experienced person "in control" and (both) 100% sober