Raise The Driving Age to 18

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

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.

I dont think its something you are born with, I never mentioned anything like that.
I just dont think that you should be free to gain your experience out on your own on the same roads that I am driving on.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

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

Irrelevant. Noelie was challenging your statement that drivers get more dangerous with experience/competence and you're just trying to deflect now.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

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

So you think my argument was that no one should be allowed to drive until they can drive? Nice logic there.

Stark wrote:

Your logic isn't even consistent any more.
In summary:

Stupidity != capability
capability -> stupidity

Depending on whom you're arguing with of course.

Your lack of basic logic is letting you down my friend.
Classic case of:
1) All blackboards are black
2) My dog is black

-> My dog is a blackboard.

So, once more for the hard of hearing:
1) You can be physically able to drive and still drive stupidly.
2) The more capable you are the more you think you are capable of until you go to far and do something stupid/unsafe.

Noelie

Stark wrote:

Irrelevant. Noelie was challenging your statement that drivers get more dangerous with experience/competence and you're just trying to deflect now.

I think he's just changing the argument to suit what he wants to argue

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Irrelevant. Noelie was challenging your statement that drivers get more dangerous with experience/competence and you're just trying to deflect now.

How is it irrelevant exactly?

Noelie believes that people should be allowed to drive and gain experience without passing a test and that this makes them safer than someone who has been driving for a shorter term (irrespective of lessons, test being passed etc)
I disagree.
Why do I disagree?
Because I think someone whos only driving experience has been lessons and passing a test is safer than someone who has not had lessons or passed a test.


and FYI I said the more potential they have, but Im sure Noelie appreciates your support :rolleyes:
AND I never mentioned experience or competence, if you were competent you would have passed a test and been give a certificate of competency.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

How is it irrelevant exactly?

Noelie believes that people should be allowed to drive and gain experience without passing a test and that this makes them safer than someone who has been driving for a shorter term (irrespective of lessons, test being passed etc)

You better slow down a little there GreeBo, I never mentioned that they wouldn't have passed a test. I'd assume someone driving 5 year would have passed there test, and that someone with two month would still be a learner.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

So you think my argument was that no one should be allowed to drive until they can drive? Nice logic there.

For the hard of hearing:

GreeBo wrote:

You should have to pass the test before you are allowed to drive.

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

You better slow down a little there GreeBo, I never mentioned that they wouldn't have passed a test. I'd assume someone driving 5 year would have passed there test, and that someone with two month would still be a learner.

Why would you make that assumption?
You get 2 years from your first & second provisional, fail a test and then get a third....

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

Why would you make that assumption?
You get 2 years from your first & second provisional, fail a test and then get a third....

Why assume they fail? Is it any more reasonable then assuming they have managed to pass a test within 5 years?

GreeBo

For the blind:

GreeBo wrote:

obviously I mean before you can drive when not under instruction.

Stark

Let's get back to the original point shall we?

All other things being equal (both having full licenses for example), who's safer?

Driver A with 2 months experience
Driver B with 5 years experience.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Let's get back to the original point shall we?

All other things being equal (both having full licenses for example), who's safer?

Driver A with 2 months experience
Driver B with 5 years experience.

Have they passed a test?

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Have they passed a test?

Stark wrote:

both having full licenses

:rolleyes:

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

Why assume they fail? Is it any more reasonable then assuming they have managed to pass a test within 5 years?

Well the thread is about learner drivers how/when people should be taught/allowed to drive.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

Why would you make that assumption?
You get 2 years from your first & second provisional, fail a test and then get a third....

I would think my assumption would be more reasonable that your's, it would be the vast majority that would pass a test within 5 years compared to those who haven't

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Well the thread is about learner drivers how/when people should be taught/allowed to drive.

It was about raising the legal driving age to 18. Learner drivers and driver tuition was just an annoying little side show.

It's like when that numpty on After Hours started professing they were a legend driver and when it turned up they didn't even know how to use an overtaking lane, the first thing they did was start harping on about learner drivers in Germany.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

Let's get back to the original point shall we?

All other things being equal (both having full licenses for example), who's safer?

Driver A with 2 months experience
Driver B with 5 years experience.

Ah, I missed that bit.

There is absolutely no way of knowing without seeing both drivers.
Driver B has more potential to be a "better" driver as they have more experience but its not a tautology that driver B always has more experience.

If our testing method was changed to something like I had outlined then it would be much more likely that Driver B was the better driver, but right now its a toss up.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

It was about raising the legal driving age to 18. Learner drivers and driver tuition was just an annoying little side show.

You pointed out that people are not "born with the skillz" so Im pretty confident in thinking that these 18 year olds were learners at one stage and were taught how to drive.

GreeBo

Noelie wrote:

I would think my assumption would be more reasonable that your's, it would be the vast majority that would pass a test within 5 years compared to those who haven't

Granted, but with out current system that tells you nothing about each drivers abilities.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

so Im pretty confident in thinking that these 18 year olds were learners at one stage and were taught how to drive.

We were all babies at one stage, but fortunately not every thread is dragged off topic to talk about toilet training.

The topic was about whether they should be allowed learn/drive at 17 or 18.

Noelie

GreeBo wrote:

Granted, but with out current system that tells you nothing about each drivers abilities.

that is true, I know a girl and she had passed her test but was keeping her L plates on as she wasn't confident enough to take them off. She thought people would be more patient with her if she left them up.

But lets get back to the topic. Should the legal age to drive be increased? I'd say no, that other restrictions should be used.
Such as, limiting the power of the car. Having to do a certain amount of lessons. before getting a provisional licence.

GreeBo

Stark wrote:

The topic was about whether they should be allowed learn/drive at 17 or 18.

In that case your last 10 or so posts are all off topic.

The direction of the thread had moved slightly due to the problems with trying to achieve safer drivers by changing the age limits.
As Noelie points out, there are other things that need to be considered.

MrPudding

Noelie wrote:

I think he's just changing the argument to suit what he wants to argue

He is not changing his arguement to suit. He is changing what most people think the definition of "capable." I, like most people I would imagine, have always believed that if a person is "capable" at a given task it mean they are competant and able to carry out the task. He seems to think otherwise.

MrP

Wishbone Ash

Lads/ladies - please refrain from getting personal. I've had to edit many of the posts. And please keep it on topic if at all possible.

Thanks. WA

Pigwidgeon

i think it should be lowered to 16

embraer170

I really wonder what is this Irish obsession with the power of the car. In France/Switz/Germany, its impact on insurance premiums and road tax is minimal. People laugh when they hear most Irish family saloons have 1.6/1.8l engines (I don't think a 1.6l Avensis is even available in many places).

For those suggesting limiting engine size/BHP, what about those are learning to drive`on a larger family car? Tell them to go off and buy another car? They are sufficiently penalised with ridiculous insurance premiums for what is considered on the low end of the power scale elsewhere.

A friend in Switzerland got a 2l Golf GT Sport as his first car when he was 18/19 and I was amazed at how cheap his insurance was.

kateos2

kateos2 wrote:

i think it should be lowered to 16

As long as there would be mandatory training.

NewApproach

Im 17 and drive a 2l petrol car.

Its the family car so what other option is there, short of buying a new car?

Pigwidgeon

Deleted User wrote:

As long as there would be mandatory training.

yeah of course you should be able to start learning when you're 16 with a provisional and then when you're 17 able to apply to do your test and get ur full licence

Seinas

NewApproach wrote:

Im 17 and drive a 2l petrol car.

Its the family car so what other option is there, short of buying a new car?

and Im 17 and drive a 2.5L diesel jeep..

I cant really see a difference on raising the age to 18 for some reason