Out of deference to our dial up readers Volume 1 locked and can be found here :-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=55...0
You are welcome to carry on discussing here.
|
Statistics 2004
"Provisional figures show thirty five per cent of drivers and riders aged between 30-39 killed were over the limit compared to 30% of those aged 20-29 and 23% of those aged 16-19 in 2004."
So 16-29 year olds account for 53% of all drunk driving fatalities.
www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content...5
for 2005 breath tests see page 110 of
www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/...a
Under 30s comprised 35% of all car failed breath tests.
madf
|
|
So statistically a 39y/o is more likely to die drink-driving than a 17y/o...... interesting! Just goes to show it's lack of skill and poor judgement causing the younger fatalities, rather than drink.
|
"So statistically a 39y/o is more likely to die drink-driving than a 17y/o"
Only if the total numbers are similar (only percentages are quoted) which is clearly not the case...
|
|
|
|
" was complaining about misuse of the word 'tragedy'."
I'm quite keen on the correct use of words, too, as I write for part of my living. I think regular and ongoing deaths count as tragic when they are avoidable, which many of these are. It's a national tragedy because our system of tests and licensing applies nationally and could be altered if anyone could figure out (and get agreement on) how best to change it for the better.
One suggestion has been to limit young or new drivers to smaller-engined vehicles, which the norm for motorcyclists and generally accepted as a good idea for them. It doesn't seem to go down too well with BMW owners, however... :-)
|
Quite a lot of individual tragedies JBJ, granted, awful for those concerned and sometimes such a waste of potential, but hardly a national one, anyway IMO. Perhaps I should have specified the phrase 'national tragedy'.
Now the battle of the Somme, or the comportment of workers and management in the British motor industry in the fifties and sixties...
|
I am also not too sure of the word tragedy being used, but I also am not happy with the comments that as long as these "bad chavs" kill themselves and no one else then everything is OK.
You can either look at in in that scenario or you can look a bit deeper, why are they like that etc etc. In my previous jobs I had numerous problems with addicts shoplifting and causing me real hassle with taking up my time etc. But they are someone's kid, they are someone who somewhere along the line has been failed by parents / peers or society. But it doesn't mean we should give up on them surely?
I had one kid of 9 year old, caught him shoplifting fruit at 8.15 in the morning. Asked him why - he lived with his mother and she started work at 7am so he was kicked out the house with no breakfast until school started. Whilst waiting for the police, I made sure he got as much as he could eat out of our canteen.
The same can be said for young drivers - is it their fault if their parents give them money to buy souped up cars and not realise the danger they are putting themselves in? Or the parents does something with the insurance to make the insurance cheaper so that their child can get a faster car?
I am not only blaming parents for this but I just feel that this whole feeling of "let them kill themselves" is a really sad reflection on our society just now.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
|
I take your point, Lud, but in an age that is otherwise absurdly risk-averse, this situation seems to have slipped under the radar.
I guess you wouldn't like the phrase 'global tragedy' much either, but I gather that over 3000 people will die in traffic accidents worldwide today...
|
I guess you wouldn't like the phrase 'global tragedy' much either but I gather that over 3000 people will die in traffic accidents worldwide today...
Alas JBJ, the same proportions apply. 3,000 out of five or six thousand million. Many times more will die gratuitously as the result of carp human action. And frankly I would rather not speculate about 'global tragedy' for fear of witnessing one. Let's not go there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If my use of the word tragedy is not universally acceptable how about heartbreak or calamity? Either way it adds up to a large number of young drivers.
Some of these will come from homes from which they do not get any support and some will be hardened criminals already, in spite of there young age.
One key point I would like to repeat is that many will come from good homes and will be well adjusted people. They will be employed or be planning higher education.
Young drivers come from a total cross section of the community. Yet they all make these terrible driving errors, some perhaps in the furtherance of a crime or escaping from it and some from sheer teenage stupidity and immaturity.
|
|
Spot on Michael, most of the young boys (and at least one young girl) killed aroiund here have been reasonable people from good families. And who the hell are we to judge people anyway ? I'm a sort of "each man's death diminshes me" type of guy. How can anyone celebrate anybody else's death ?
|
How can anyone celebrate anybody else's death ?
Nobody's celebrating the fact that peoples' irresponsible actions might result in their death. I am not particularly sympathetic to their cause given that these accidents are entirely their own doing through over-confidence and stupidity, but of course each death is regrettable. This is particularly true for those who have died due to the misjudged actions of others.
What me and others have been saying isn't that we love seeing these people end their own lives - we're making the observation that it's inevitable in a country of 60 million people, many of whom drive, that some will do so in an unacceptable manner and will ultimately pay the price. While the idealists might want to wrap every car in cotton-wool so nobody gets hurt, it is apparent to most people that incompetence behind the wheel can exist just as much in a 1.0l Micra as in a 3.5l BMW. It's not just "chavs", and it's not just people showing off to their mates - it's anyone driving beyond their capabilities, and those of their car.
|
"incompetence behind the wheel can exist just as much in a 1.0l Micra as in a 3.5l BMW"
True, but the consequences, especially for others, are likely to be more severe in the more powerful car. Unfortunately, the latter has more appeal, irrespective of the ability to handle it. Therefore some restriction, as with bikes, is called for. Those that can demonstrate their maturity and skill, e.g. by additional testing, may exempt themselves.
A couple of years ago, I did some car-shopping with my eldest son (himself a family man) and one car on our shortlist was a Mazda Demio that had been bought by a single mum for her 18-year old son, on the basis that it was a known quantity, as she had one herself. It was for sale because the ungrateful oik refused to drive it for reasons of appearance!
|
True but the consequences especially for others are likely to be more severe in the more powerful car.
As we so often hear on the TV, hitting a pedestrian at 40mph means they only have a 20% chance of surviving it. Both of the cars I mentioned will do 40mph effortlessly, and are equally capable of killing. My first car was a completely un-trendy Nissan Sunny, I would've loved a Mazda Demio!
Maybe there's 2 types of young drivers - those who drive to make their life easier and more practical, and those who drive to be seen driving. I was certainly not one of the latter group. Anyway, a more powerful car might have a better turn of speed, and a higher top speed, but any car, no matter how gutless, can be driven recklessly by a reckless driver.
|
|
|
|
I was reminded of this thread this morning, by an item on American drivers, who in most states are allowed behind the wheel from 16. The annual death toll of 16-year olds is, apparently, about 6000. I know there's a 5x bigger population in the US, but if true, this seems an appalling statistic that lends a lot of weight to the original notion on here of increasing the age.
I can't imagine anyone in the UK would consider reducing the age to be very sensible, after all...
|
|
This is also a popular discussion point in New Zealand, especially after a couple of recent fatal accidents involving 15 year old drivers. YES, the legal driver age in New Zealand is 15. At 15 you will be on a restricted licence which limits the time of day you drive unsupervised and limits the number of passengers. Both rules are pretty difficult to enforce. Once this is combined with a country that does not require compulsory insurance it does not surprise me that New Zealand has a high accident rate. The government is talking about raising the driving age and introducing compulsory insurance..., but nobody is convinced it will have much of an effect. Having learnt to drive in the UK and spent the first 10 years of my driving life in the UK I do not see how it could not be beneficial.
|
"nobody is convinced it will have much of an effect"
That's probably because only those who don't want it are making a fuss. The restricted licence idea sounds sensible, but (as you imply) doesn't work so well in practice, and as for voluntary insurance, what's that about?!
Strange how governments and authorities rarely take any lessons from practice elsewhere. A quick survey of road policy and casualty rates in other countries would yield a whole raft of useful information, but NIH (not invented here) trumps it every time. Of course, it's not just motoring - the same applies to medicine, economics, housing, etc...
|
|
|
|
