I support the principle of the amendments, although I am not sure that any of them is totally right. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said that people passing their test might be frightened; they might equally well be testosterone-fuelled, but either is equally dangerous. They need to be identified to other people and need some restriction on what they are able to do, for their own benefit. You can think of many examples where people get frightened. I understand why someone went around wearing L-plates because they were given a bit more space. Drivers do not always treat other drivers with respect.
I am sure that something needs to be done. In most other forms of training to allow you to be in charge of something that can go extremely fast and kill people if you get it wrong, you do not usually just pass your test on whatever it is and get let out into the big wide world to do exactly what you like. Whether it is six months, two years, five years or whatever, there must be some graduation for people, for their own benefit and that of everyone else. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that he will take the ideas away, look at them and come back on Report with something that brings in the good parts of all the amendments.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c657 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 11:52:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267220
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267220
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267220