Raise The Driving Age to 18

pa990

I think that there are proposals to raise the driving age (for cars) to 18 in the UK. Does anyone think that this should be the situation here as well ??


The European Directive on Driving Licences gives ages for each diving licence category, and it lists category 'B' as 18, but also states that each member state may have a lower limit of 17.

Personally .. i think that 18 is no bad thing.. there are too many kids on the road causing mayhem

(yes yes. i know that there are older people causing mayhem as well)

To be honest I see more older people who should know better making more serious driving mistakes than young drivers. I dont think raising the driving age will make a difference. Proper driving instruction to all road users would be a better move in my opinion.

Wishbone Ash

It seems a bit like a token gesture rather than a constructive effort to alieviate the problem.

It would still be possible to drive in other categories at 16 years of age.

I think it's a bit ironic that an 18 year old can legally drive a fully laden articulated truck on a public road yet a 20 year old cannot legally drive an empty mini-bus.

Beelzebub

Introduce Drivers Ed' into secondary schools.

Tails142

I would imagine very few 16 year olds do drive around on full licences anyway; they'd all be on their first provisionals and need to be accompanied.

By the time you wait for your test to come around after having sat the theory test and assuming you pass your test first time well then you're likely to be 18 pushing 20 by that stage anyway.

That is all.

lalalalinda

They should bring it up to 25 for females and 30 for males or something like that. Would probably save half the road deaths, would cause less polution etc.

lalalalinda

lalalalinda wrote:

They should bring it up to 25 for females and 30 for males or something like that. Would probably save half the road deaths, would cause less polution etc.

Surely you jest.

Wishbone Ash

Tails142 wrote:

I would imagine very few 16 year olds do drive around on full licences anyway; they'd all be on their first provisionals and need to be accompanied

16 year olds may only legally drive categories W and M - the accompanied rule does not apply.

wheresthebeef

what they should do is prevent drivers who are under 18 from driving unless they are having a driving lesson with an approved RSA instructor. i.e you cannot possess your own insurance policy or car until you are 18. at 17 you're still technically a child and really shouldn't be allowed to drive a dangerous weapon.

Stark

Raising the driving age wouldn't be good for people living in rural areas who are heavily dependant on being able to drive. Also I think 17 is a handy age to get a provisional as it allows someone to learn to drive before leaving home for college etc. Of course the biggest barrier here is the obscene insurance rates for young drivers. Some insurance companies offer a cheap "learners only package" where you're only insured when driving accompanied by a designated driver, but most don't offer it and I don't think any of them allow you to choose a parent as your designated driver.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Of course the biggest barrier here is the obscene insurance rates for young drivers.

Which are high because...?

Noelie

It would be better to put a power limit on what they can drive, learners can only drive up to a 1.4ltr or a certain BHP something like that, rather than saying you can't drive till your 18. Age should be taken out of the equation it should all be about experience. a 21 year old who is driving for 5 years should be in a better position that a 25 year old driving 2 months

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

a 21 year old who is driving for 5 years should be in a better position that a 25 year old driving 2 months

Why?
The 21yo could be a menace on the road and the 25 year old could be fine.
You shouldnt be allowed on the road unless you are being tested or getting a lesson.
You shouldnt be allowed to go for a test unless you are recommended by an instructor and instructors should be controlled and regulated, not the current free for all.

Iompair

Rather then raising the age limit I'd prefer to see learners have to take a minimum number of lessons before being given their provisional liscence and sent out on the road.

Maybe 10 lessons in a 3 month period and then signed off by the instructor and given a one year permit in which they have to complete more lessons and finally a test. If you fail the test its back to square 1.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

Why?
The 21yo could be a menace on the road and the 25 year old could be fine.

<edit>The point Noelie is trying to make is a person with 5 year of driving experience will be more capable than a person with 2 months, and I think you knew that. Of course there will be exceptions, but I would hazard that statistically speaking 5 years experience will be better than 2 months. If only we had some mathematical way of proving this. If only there was a industry that collected and used this kind of information. Oh, wow. I have just had a brilliant idea I think I can sell to the insurance companies. They should look at incidents that occur on the roads, and then analyse them. If they took the driving experience of the people involved in the incidents they might be able to work out who would be more likely to have a crash. They could then offer discounts to people in the groups less likely to be involved in an incident. :rolleyes:

GreeBo wrote:

You shouldnt be allowed on the road unless you are being tested or getting a lesson.
You shouldnt be allowed to go for a test unless you are recommended by an instructor and instructors should be controlled and regulated, not the current free for all.

Agreed 100%.

MrP

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Which are high because...?

Edit: No "yore ma" rubbish here Stark - this isn't After Hours!

GreeBo

Iompair wrote:

a one year permit in which they have to complete more lessons and finally a test. If you fail the test its back to square 1.

But then you can still have some cretin on the road for a year.
You should have to pass the test before you are allowed to drive.
The test is to certify if you are competent at driving, why should you be able to drive before you have proven that you are competent?

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Because <edit>keeps distracting them while they're driving.

:rolleyes:
A topic isnt just a chocolate bar <edit>
Try and stay on it.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

But then you can still have some cretin on the road for a year.

The current law requires you to be accompanied. They just need to enforce this law.

GreeBo wrote:

The test is to certify if you are competent at driving, why should you be able to drive before you have proven that you are competent?

Those of us who aren't born with the skillz have to practise.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

<edit> The point Noelie is trying to make is a person with 5 year of driving experience will be more capable than a person with 2 months, and I think you knew that.

<edit>
Ok, so someone with 6 years driving experience is likely to be more capable at making a car go and stop. That has very little bearing on their "safeness" on the road, which is what drives the insurance premium...
Capability has nothing to do with safeness, the more capable a driver gets the more likely they are to try something stupid imo.

MrPudding wrote:

They should look at incidents that occur on the roads, and then analyse them. If they took the driving experience of the people involved in the incidents they might be able to work out who would be more likely to have a crash. They could then offer discounts to people in the groups less likely to be involved in an incident. :rolleyes:
MrP

Which was my first point.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

<edit>
Ok, so someone with 6 years driving experience is likely to be more capable at making a car go and stop. That has very little bearing on their "safeness" on the road, which is what drives the insurance premium...
Capability has nothing to do with safeness, the more capable a driver gets the more likely they are to try something stupid imo.

Jasus, the better you get, the more dangerous you get? You need to get this urgent message to Pat Kenny right away before the deaths continue to mount. We need to start by taking everyone who passes a driving test off the roads. We can't have people racing around everywhere with the skillz.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

The current law requires you to be accompanied. They just need to enforce this law.

The law doesnt specify that the other person not be a cretin. They just need to have a license, which currently means nothing.

Stark wrote:

Those of us who aren't born with the skillz have to practise.

If you arent born with the skillz you should get lessons from someone who is trained to teach you the skillz.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

<edit>
Ok, so someone with 6 years driving experience is likely to be more capable at making a car go and stop. That has very little bearing on their "safeness" on the road, which is what drives the insurance premium...
Capability has nothing to do with safeness, the more capable a driver gets the more likely they are to try something stupid imo.

And people who are less capable are also more likely too do something stupid.
For example I was on a roundabout at Dundrum on Sunday, when someone pulled out in front of me, I had to brake hard as they did not get up to speed quick enough once getting onto the roundabout, not how is that safe?
and it was a learner

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Jasus, the better you get, the more dangerous you get?

No, the more potential you have.
If you are barely able to change gears you are pretty unlikely to wrap your car around a tree.
If you are very proficient at mechanically driving you are more likely to think that you can fit through that gap or that you can make those lights if you speed up.

Stark

If you arent born with the skillz you should get lessons from someone who is trained to teach you the skillz.

GreeBo wrote:

You should have to pass the test before you are allowed to drive.
The test is to certify if you are competent at driving, why should you be able to drive before you have proven that you are competent?

So you just do what, shadow your instructor while he shows you where the pedals are etc.? "Now that you've seen me done it, it's time for you to do a test and try it yourself".

GreeBo wrote:

No, the more potential you have.
If you are barely able to change gears you are pretty unlikely to wrap your car around a tree.
If you are very proficient at mechanically driving you are more likely to think that you can fit through that gap or that you can make those lights if you speed up.

Inexperienced drivers are far more likely to do stupid things because they overestimate themselves and/or their cars. People tend to have the most accidents in the first year after they get their license.

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

And people who are less capable are also more likely too do something stupid.

thats the point, they are not.
Stupidity != capability.
You can be able to make a car go and still be as think as two planks.

Noelie wrote:

not how is that safe? and it was a learner

Its not safe. They shouldnt be on the road unless being instructed in which case they wouldnt have pulled out.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

So you just do what, shadow your instructor while he shows you where the pedals are etc.? "Now that you've seen me done it, it's time for you to do a test and try it yourself".

Dont be <edit>, obviously I mean before you can drive when not under instruction.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

No, the more potential you have.
If you are barely able to change gears you are pretty unlikely to wrap your car around a tree.

maybe true but then they are more likely to pull out in front of someone and not be able to move off quick enough.
Also if you can't change gear most people tend to look at what they are trying to do, thus taking their eyes off the road and running over the kiddies on the zebra crossing.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

Its not safe. They shouldnt be on the road unless being instructed in which case they wouldnt have pulled out.

and that's exactly my point, learners aren't the safest drivers, safety is something that comes with experience, and contrary to what you think it's not something you are born with it's something you get with experience.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Dont be <edit>, obviously I mean before you can drive when not under instruction.

Sure you did, you weren't typing out unthinking "take them all off the road!" rhetoric at all.

GreeBo wrote:

thats the point, they are not.

Your logic isn't even consistent any more.

Like here:

GreeBo wrote:

Stupidity != capability.

GreeBo wrote:

the more capable a driver gets the more likely they are to try something stupid imo.

So stupidity and capability are unrelated, yet at the same time, they are?

In summary:

Stupidity != capability
capability -> stupidity

Depending on whom you're arguing with of course.

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

maybe true but then they are more likely to pull out in front of someone and not be able to move off quick enough.
Also if you can't change gear most people tend to look at what they are trying to do, thus taking their eyes off the road and running over the kiddies on the zebra crossing.

Not if they are in a dual control car with an instructor they wont.