|
It seems that 85% of Telegraph readers who have voted in today's poll think that the driving age ought to be raised to 18. Does this forum agree?
|
No, I know plenty of 17 year olds who would struggle without driving.
They should concentrate on getting car thieves, car criminals, joyriders, car-jackers off the road before picking on ordinary folk.
|
|
85% of Telegraph readers are probably already comfortably over the age of 18.
|
|
|
|
|
A better system would be for those under 21 who get more than say 6 points for example, on their license to be made to take a retest. There are a significant number of careful 17 yr old drivers who don't actually tear through urban streets at double the speed limit who would be denied the right to drive due to the actions of a minority. A car size / power limit may help as well.
|
i dont agree but then i petitioned my local cinema to take the back row of seats out because of grunting kids
|
i dont agree but then i petitioned my local cinema to take the back row of seats out because of grunting kids
Surely if you took the back row out, the penultimate row would become the back row?
:-)
|
|
|
i dont agree but then i petitioned my local cinema to take the back row of seats out because of grunting kids And mobile phones...MD
|
|
|
|
Setting any age limit is entirely arbitrary - I suspect that politicians feel a need to be seen to be doing something as much as anything else.
I just hope they don't find out that it's legal to fly a light aircraft solo at 16, though you can't fly with passengers until you have a PPL , which has a lower limit set at age 17.
|
What does raising the minimum age do for driving, or anything else? It just penalises the responsible, who are still a majority, but does nothing about the irresponsible who'll just do it illegally until they are old enough.
Drivers already lose their licence if they get 6 points in the first two years of a full licence and insurance premiums already deter legitimate youngsters from getting powerful cars.
The big problem, not just in driving, is the lack of police resources to catch those acting illegally with little or no respect for the rest of society together with the double-figure number of "second" chances that these offenders are given if they're caught.
|
IF you raise the minimum age you should also introduce some minimum hours type scheme, or harsher penalties for breaking the law in the early years after passing.
A 50 year old who has just passed their test could have the same or less experience than a 17 year old who has just passed theirs.
|
IF you raise the minimum age you should also introduce some minimum hours type scheme or harsher penalties for breaking the law in the early years after passing. A 50 year old who has just passed their test could have the same or less experience than a 17 year old who has just passed theirs.
I'm 21 and have driven over 100k miles in the last 3 years largely in quite powerful cars. I now have a company Focus Titanium 2.0tdci in which I do approx 800 miles a week through varying times of day and road conditions. I have a 20 mile a day motorway commute to my office, one day a week in a different office 250 miles away, and client visits throughout the week. Plus I run a children's football team and frequently travel fair distances occasionally with a car full of kids for away games on a Saturday morning. I'm frequently given loan cars through work connections including a variety of real performance cars such as a BMW 335d that I had for a week earlier in the year.
Most 21 year old drivers have far less experience than me. Equally a 30 year old who passed 10 years ago but doesn't do much driving will have far less experience than me.
Yet proposals would have me limited in terms of hours or passengers. Perhaps not now that I am 21 but I was doing the same type of driving when I was 20 (and had passed less than two years prior). Clearly I have demonstrated my ability to drive safely in a variety of conditions in fairly powerful cars yet many of the restrictions which are so often proposed would stop me doing just that.
I'm also always frustrated by the high insurance cost that comes with my situation. Prior to having my company car I was paying £1600 in insurance for a year and was accident and claim free through the 25k I did. However my dad, paying £400, drove in general with less care and attention and was a higher risk throughout (as demonstrated by his being picked up for speeding and a couple of incidents resulting in claims, or him paying himself to fix his car).
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that there is no fair way to restrict new drivers, just as there is no way to set insurance premiums that are always accurately reflective of the risk.
I can happily support harsher penalties for breaking the law within early years of driving but only for issues like no insurance, drink driving, without due care and attention, or reckless speeding. I would hate to see a high mileage young driver like me get penalised for picking up a couple of SP50s for 85 on the motorway which we must all agree are very easy to get (especially as a long distance driver) but not really indicative of the driver being unsafe or a higher risk than any other.
Apologies for the long message but had a lot to say here!
|
I agreed with you up to:
"I would hate to see a high mileage young driver like me get penalised for picking up a couple of SP50s for 85 on the motorway which we must all agree are very easy to get "
To be clocked at 85 suggests a speedo read of 90+. That's entirely avoidable and shows either a lack of concentration or worse.
|
|
|
>>I would hate to see a high mileage young driver like me get penalised for picking up a couple of SP50s for 85 on the motorway which we must all agree are very easy to get (especially as a long distance driver) but not really indicative of the driver being unsafe or a higher risk than any other.
Clearly I'm not competent - I manage only around 25 to 30 k a year at the moment and have done so for the last six years - prior to that it was around 20k a year for about 15 years and before that about 10k a year for 4 years - yes I am that old.
Never had an SP50 - where do I go wrong - or am I doing it right.
Oh and my current car easily outperforms a Focus diesel (of any description).
Edited by hxj on 18/10/2007 at 17:25
|
|
|
Long but well written.
Couple of points:
You appear to be atypical of the majority of younger drivers, however the only way you can demonstrate this to an insurance company is to take the Passplus test or becoming an IAM (Institute of advanced motorists) member. This does attract an extra discount from some insurance companies.
At least one insurance company is trialling pay-per-drive where you pay for the hours you're actually driving, for younger drivers who don't drive a lot this is a lot fairer. Of course, it's loaded if you drive at certain times because the stats say so.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you about being selective about which offences should count against you in the early years of driving.
Speed or rather inappropriate speed is a major causal factor in accidents involving young drivers, that's not in dispute.
Maybe it was down to fate but recalling previous threads regarding motorway speeds you must have been really unlucky or your driving was attracting plod's attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it hard to see how a 16yo can be considered legally responsible enough to marry and have children and yet not be old enough drive a car, drink the champagne toast at their own wedding reception or vote for a new set of idiots to legislate on everything in sight.
|
Exactly, if you take away the married and kids at 16 everything else makes sense.
No-one under 30 votes now anyway!
|
Exactly if you take away the married and kids at 16 everything else makes sense. No-one under 30 votes now anyway!
Really the whole issue of ages/rights needs looking at and some sort of sensible changes made. The current crop of varying legislation from the last 200 years or so just fosters the "why should I care about something so stupid" attitude that leads to low voter turn out.
As far as driving age goes learning at 17 under supervision seems reasonable in most cases to me. Obviously we all know highly responsible 15 yo who could drive safely - and highly irresponsible 30yo who should never be allowed within 20 yards of a steering wheel
A line (however arbitrary) has to be drawn somewhere.
|
I would hate to see a high mileage young driver like me get penalised for picking up a couple of SP50s for 85 on the motorway which we must all agree are very easy to get (especially as a long distance driver) but not really indicative of the driver being unsafe or a higher risk than any other.
Unfortunately I think this last paragraph rather undermines the rest of your post. Getting a 'couple of SP50's for 85' very definitely indicates a higher risk driver - and probably one with poor observational skills to boot. I have done probably 50-fold the amount of driving you have and managed to reach close to 50 years old without an SP50, a lot of that in something a bit quicker than a diesel Ford. A youngster with a couple of SP50's sounds dangerous to me - ask your insurance company for their opinion!
|
|
A the father of a 17 year old lad who is keen to start driving (and who has 17/18 year old friends who already have passed the test) I would support any move to increase the driving age. My lad is very bright and sensible, but many are not and many youngsters lack emotional maturity (including my son in this respect). Several of his young friends have already had minor accidents. Not really through lack of ability to drive but through immature attitudes. Young drivers are resonsible for a disproportionate number of accidents - its not for nothing that insurance companies charge those high premiums!
|
|
|
You have to laugh. Successive Government's work hard to create a situation where virtually everyone, young and old, needs a car for work and pleasure, and then they want to further restrict access. These politicians really don't get it do they!
Edited by R40 on 18/10/2007 at 19:22
|
You have to laugh. Successive Government's work hard to create a situation where virtually everyone young and old needs a car
You have to laugh at comments like that, because its not true. 30 years ago teenagers had less money (or rather their parents did) so most 17 year olds were still getting places on foot, bike or by bus - if you were lucky you had a moped. Today's 17 year olds get a car bought by mum and dad and then its straight down to Halfords for a bigger stereo. Having a car at 17 is now largely about style and looking cool - I know because I'm at the sharp end of it with my lad and his friends.
|
Having a car at 17 is now largely about style and looking cool - I know because I'm atthe sharp end of it with my lad and his friends.
I do know because I'm at my own sharp end with a teenager. Public transport may exist in some (urban areas) but in many other areas it simply doesn't in a form that can be relied upon.
But the 'pester' issue you describe is part of it, and nothing changes in that having style and looking cool is just as important now as it was when platforms and penny round collars existed ;) Today's more expensive equivalent being a Corsa (no offence).
How are you tackling it with your lad?
|
My take on what James86 was trying to say with his SP50 comment is that 85mph on the average U.K. motorway is no big deal and in fact a huge chunk of the motoring public are doing it.......so it would be easy for anyone, inc a young driver, to be caught for it, but would not necessarily make them a poor driver.
what a surprise to see pious comments about people's cars being more powerful than his, how long they've been driving and how dangerous that is.....yawn
Edited by Westpig on 18/10/2007 at 21:57
|
Cool Westpig. My very thoughts.
Some people just can't get used to the idea that cars are meant to go fast and that's why people like them, and that not everyone is an incompetent wally who's going to cause trouble if they exceed the speed limit.
Actually as any fule kno there are lots of po-faced 'careful' drivers out there who are positively lethal. I see them every day. Wouldn't be surprised if some don't post here sometimes.
|
This thread started off by discussing the proposal to raise the driving age to 18.
It's fairly obvious where this is coming from and remarks such as" Some people just can't get used to the idea that cars are meant to go fast and that's why people like them. miss the point by some distance.
Is a youth driving a car fast because cars are meant to go fast any less dangerous than your po-faced careful drivers. The youth probably has better reactions and is less complacent that Mr Po but driving at inappropriate speeds stacks up the odds.
The insurance companies don't load younger drivers because not everyone is an incompetent wally, other than the exception I've mentioned in an earlier thread they have to generalise according to claims within that age group.
Cars are mean't as a means of transport and that sometimes involves driving fast, either for necessity or pleasure - but you to have balance speed with occasion/location which requires experience.
|
The youth probably has better reactions ........
Having quicker reactions isn't the be all and end all of not being involved in an accident. A large factor is being able to see a hazardous situation approaching early enough, and that tends to come only with experience.
--
L\'escargot.
|
That's what I was trying to say, you need to develop road sense and driving too fast for the conditions cannot always be counter-acted by faster reactions.
.....but driving at inappropriate speeds stacks up the odds.
As I said it's all a matter of balance.
|
|
Thank you for calling me 'pious' that's a hilarious first!
The point, which you seemed to miss, was that you have to be fairly careless or unlucky to get one SP50 at 85 mph and positively stupid to get two, within a short period. In my view anyone who gets caught once at 85 mph and continues to drive at such speeds in the period to the end of the 6pt period is demonstrating exactly why the period is in place.
Having just walked away from a motorway shunt at 35/40 mph and seen the damage I can assure you that an accident at 85 mph would be a big deal. No it wasn't my fault and I could do nothing about it.
|
Having just walked away from a motorway shunt at 35/40 mph and seen the damage
I can assure you that an accident at 85 mph would be a big deal. No it wasn't my fault and I could do nothing about it.
you need to speed up a bit... 35/40 on a motorway is far too slow and is dangerous.. if you're not careful you'll cause an accident........:-)
|
Bit tricky on the M6 round Birmingham at rush hour!
35/40 was obviously too fast and dangerous ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
No voting, drinking, smoking and now driving until eighteen but you can still have sex at sixteen - but for how long?????
Actually, I probably didnt realise there was a Daily Telegraph until i was over 18 - because i spent too much of my money on cider, fags and driving lessons to afford a broadsheet.
Lola
|
If its about saving young lives,which i doubt anyway,how many more youngsters are going to get killed/badly injured thru riding scooters and motor cycles until they are old enough to drive a car?
I am a keen biker but i do not want,and certainly try not to encourage my teenage lad to get a scooter at 16 but i would feel happier if he was in a car.
|
We have here a culture of drinking, of peer group social lives. Very different to Europe [family oriented] and the USA [no drinking below 21].
We therefore need make our own rules appropriately, IMHO.
It is also worth remembering that the proportion of 17 year olds driving is no more than 10% of the total probably. The rest cannot access a car, or their parents afford the insurance. So we are talking small numbers affected.
In NZ, they're debating raising the age to 16, from 15. It's 16 in the USA [but no drink, which seems the right way round!].
I'd like to see state sponsored driving simulators, and a mandatory period on them; and compulsory attendance at a film of the aftermath of an accident.
It might be sensible to restrict younger drivers to driving only between 8a.m. - 7p.m., or is that impossible to control/stupid?
|
Ed,
In N.Z., the restriction on "new" drivers here is 10 pm to 6 am, but is proving almost impossible to police, although blitzes do net quite a few.
On the other hand, the youngsters who have completed their period of restriction and passed their final hurdle to become Boy [ and Girl ] -racers are the ones who seem to cause most of the trouble. Recent figures here indicate that the 15 - 16 yr olds during their 18 months restriction have a lower accident rate than the 17 plus group. Only yesterday, a young gentleman was jailed for manslaughter after killing someone whilst street-racing. The police have stepped up from the lesser evil of Dangerous Driving Causing Death, but whether this will have a salutary effect remains to be seen. { The driver of the other car in the race is also being charged with manslaughter, presumably for aiding and abetting which carries the same penalty.}
In Victoria, Australia, the probationary period is 3 years, during which they have to display a "P" plate in place of the "L", and zero alcohol. My nephew found this extremely irksome.
I see that the shrinks claim to have found that the part of the brain that takes in situations and assesses danger is not fully developed until age 25. Somebody from the Department of Nannies will no doubt get the O.B.E. for suggesting that the driving licence age should be 26. { Must have at least a year'safety factor }.
|
|
|
|
It's a double edged sword - I learned to drive first on a moped and then on a bike before getting a car.
IMO this has made me a better driver (relatively!) as the awareness that you develop riding a bike transfers across to driving a car.
|
My thread "skill or attitude" may be relevant to this thread.
tinyurl.com/38rkqt
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact remains that young drivers have a totally disproportionate number of accidents. At one extreme, the younger age group (17 to 20) represents something like 3-4% of the driving population and has 25-30% of all Death by Dangerous driving convictions. Either these drivers end up in prison having killed their mates, girlfriends or innocent victims or they kill themselves. Some have lesser convictions but still with awful consequences as per the tragic case in Wales last week.
The under 25 age group (13% of drivers) suffer 30% of all deaths. The figures are unpalatable to younger drivers by supportable by the facts.
Unless somebody forces a change the situation will get worse as more and more young people start to drive at the earliest possible opportunity. I believe that change will be imposed along with some other graduated restrictions to curb youthful exuberance, immaturity, showmanship or just plain stupidity. Call it what you will. Unfortunately there will be some who will suffer the inconvenience for the sake of the many.
|
Is there a direct link between lightness of brain and heaviness of foot?
MD
|
I think the age at which you can learn to drive and pass the test should remain at 17 but...
Even after passing a test and obtaining full licence, a 17 year-old should still have to carry an accompanying passenger over 25 who has held a driving licence for at least 5 years until they are 18.
I agree that an age limit is somewhat arbitrary, and that there are probably quite a lot of 15 year olds who would be responsible drivers, if allowed, but one has to draw the line somewhere!
Which brings me to upper age limit - should we have one? Why not, if we accept the need for a lower one. There is probably little purpose served by introducing a maximum driving age but I see no logical argument against it.
I would say that people should have to stop driving at 90. Most of us will not live to that age. If we do, we will probably have given up driving anyway. Of those aged 90+ who do still drive, a fair proportion are probably unfit to do so.
|
Comment for Sofa Spud
Until the last election when it was cancelled as an election bribe, we in N.Z. had regular testing for the senior citizens. As I recall, at 70, a medical certificate got you another 5 years, then at 75 a repeat. From 80 onwards, it was medical plus practical test every 2 years. There was no actual legislated upper age limit, although the tester could set restrictions such as no motorway driving.
|
To Kiwi Gary: Some good points raised.
Just a small point for UK readers, that in New Zealand the driving age is still 15. Parliament may raise this to 16 shortly. Not all drivers start then, but driving at 15 is more common in rural areas due to lack of public transport and lower traffic density.
There are also moves to introduce a compulsory third party insurance scheme similar to that in place in UK. At the moment insurance is completely voluntary. The insurance may have an effect on young drivers as the insurance companies cover their losses with hefty premiums for younger or less experienced drivers.
|
|
|
|
