Skip to content

Discuss This Poll: Should car drivers should get restricted driving licences? General news

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > General news > Poll: Should car drivers should get restricted driving licences?

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply




System  says:

Poll: Should car drivers should get restricted driving licences?

With new rules coming into force in January, it's now going to be even more difficult to get your bike license, especially for younger riders. But, with so many bike accidents being caused by car drivers, is this really the right direction, or should we be doing more to educate car drivers? There's no limits on car licenses, allowing a 17-year old...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 2 years ago (10 December 2012 15:50)

Post a message in General news

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required


Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)


Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 



Nov 10

Posts: 4

whealie says:

We shoud not be campaigning for others to have their rights taken away, but be campaigning for bikers to have equal rights with car drivers by having restrictions removed. There will be a referendum on Scottish independence allowing 16-year-olds to vote. They will able to vote, marry, have children but not ride a motorcycle. Something is very wrong.

Oh and the noun is licence (you got it right in the poll but not the story).

Reply to this Topic


Jul 07

Posts: 35

rossired says:

Licence restrictions

Why shouldn't they be restricted?  you can do far more damage with a car than you can with a bike, therefore there should be even more harsh restrictions with car licenses.  The amount of people young people i see driving around with multiple occupants showing off and talking on mobile phones it's horrendous.

Reply to this Topic


Aug 09

Posts: 36

morristhemog says:


Nice.  Absolutely spot on, IMO.

Instead of justifying the removal of our civil liberties by approving this very action onto others, we should instead continue efforts to promote common sense.

Reply to this Topic


Mar 08

Posts: 132

tman39a says:

why not have the same rules.

I agree with some that it shouldn't be a case of nailing changes to younger new car drivers as the insurance is usually a deterrent anyway. However there are enough young drivers with access to or the money to afford to drive whatever they want and its always been that way. A mates son has access to a new BMW M5 or an Range Rover V8..he's 17 and had he licence 3 how is it right to have a biker stuck with a restriction at that age when those with the means can drive 500hp cars having only done a test in something with under 100hp ...often a sluggish diesel at that. Fortunately in my mates case the son is there solely as a named driver for when needs require my mate to have a lift home etc....he bought the son a little Corsa 1.0 with the promise of something better once his 'R' period is up based on him keeping his nose clean as such......a family version of the bike rules I guess. You just have to look at the bumpers and mirror tips on a lot of young drivers cars to know they need more skills before getting into bigger or faster cars as the test itself isn't focusing on the correct aspects of driving. You just have to compare the slow speed stuff from the bike and car tests to know that car drivers get it easy.

Reply to this Topic


Nov 12

Posts: 28

MrGiggle says:


I was making the point of power, 125ccs can go around 70mph where as any car will easily do 100 plus, talking abut the dangers of speed not going fast for the thrill, im just saying it abit unfair because it also limits the roads 125ccs can use aswell. And im not jelous as i have no interest in cars. Id rather wait 4 years and work my way through different powered bikes than get a small box on wheels.

Reply to this Topic


Apr 09

Posts: 18

biker1473 says:

Rocker66says "I would like to hear on what grounds those that voted "NO" base their argument" I voted 'no' mainly for the reason that I think it would be unworkable. The engine power restriction would have to be set absurdly low to be meaningful (think sub one litre Micra power) which is positively dangerous on the motorway and /some/ young drivers would need to do so to commute to work. How would the rules apply to driving their parent's car? If that is off-limits and they can't afford their own car then what happens? They do their 2 years 'probation' doing no driving at all and then drive a car for the first time, two years after their test, having forgotten everything? Or would they be allowed to drive a larger capacity vehicle when accompanied? In a similar vein, what if the young driver is required to drive a company van? It's hard enough as it is for a youngster to get a job but an employer is always going to take on someone older if it means they can actually get to the site to do the work. A better proposal, IMHO, would be to have a mandatory 'refresher' test after two years. So 17 year olds would take their car test as at present and, if they pass, be able to drive any capacity car. After two years they take a simpler second test that aims to test driving standards/quality. If they pass that then they get heir 'full' licence. And I would be quite happy to see that second test extended so that *all* car drivers have to take it every 5 years. One fail = one chance of a re-test; two fails and you have to re-take and pass the full test within 90 days or lose your licence.

Reply to this Topic


May 12

Posts: 26

records1990 says:

Young drivers

Absolutely no doubt about it, they should be restricted to smaller and low power cars, until there old enough and sensible enough to appreciate and get experience just like young bikers who've just got there licence.

We all know what young teenagers are like, we've all been there, but in today's life there are too many obstacles in the way of enjoying life on roads like they were 40 and 50 years ago, and also bikes today are more powerful than years ago, so if bikers have to pay the price when there young, then so should young car drivers too.

Reply to this Topic


Dec 12

Posts: 9

wagend says:

As with all problems in life, you cannot solve them by focusing solely on one half of the issue. Plenty has been done in recent years to further educate and train motorcyclists due to the inherent risks of riding on busy British roads in often less than ideal weather conditions, but more needs to be done to continue to make car and other vehicle drivers aware of the dangers they pose not just to motorcyclists but to all other road users. Speed will most often play a detrimental effect in any accident but it certainly isn't the only one, it just seems to be the easiest to target. Limiting engine size isn't a fantastic measure either -- a Harley Sportster will only do around 120mph, with a 1200cc engine (I know, I know, but I'm just making a point) and pretty much any of the sporty 125s will hit 80mph, plenty fast enough to get yourself in trouble. In my opinion the physical size of the vehicle, be it bike or car, is something just as dangerous as the speed it will go at. It seems common sense that a new driver, of whatever age, shouldn't be allowed on our congested roads in a great big SUV or 4x4 the same as a new rider wouldn't be allowed to ride a Goldwing. If safety is the key here then we need more than a few "think bike" signs around. It needs to be instilled in new drivers from the very start that they need to be constantly aware of their surroundings, that once they're in their little heated cocoon they don't become lazy and complacent and -- above all else -- arrogant. How many Jekyll and Hyde drivers have you seen who get behind the wheel and turn into idiots purely because they have the protection and separation and detachment of being inside the car?

Reply to this Topic


Oct 08

Posts: 47

No passengers for 2 years?

Power restrictions are pretty pointless if the driver has no self-restraint. A 50bhp Micra can still do 60mph in a 30mph limit given a heavy right foot, in the same way that you can just as easily kill yourself on a moped as you can on a 1000cc sportsbike if you ride like an idiot.

The restriction if anything should be on the number of passengers. Young people concentrate less and show off more when they're carrying their friends around. Restrict their number of passengers to zero for the first 2 years and see the number of young road deaths plummet.

That and much more rigorous training, aimed at becoming a better driver, not just aimed at passing the test.

Reply to this Topic


Oct 08

Posts: 47

In fact...

...the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Just think how many unnecessary car journeys would be cancelled out if teeneagers couldn't ferry their mates around. I suspect many wouldn't even bother getting a car until they were older. The ones who do need to drive, perhaps for work, benefit from a lower accident risk. Plus, the accidents they do have will average a much lower casualty rate.

So the roads get safer and less congested, young people use, and therefore fund, public transport for an extra couple of years, the government gets the improved safety statistics they're searching for, and insurance premiums come down for those who actually do need to drive. Everyone's a winner. There's got to be a catch...

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale


It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices