driving age

[Nij]

Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

I have a 19 year old daughter who's been driving for a year now, still waiting for her first prang and a reasonable driver but, I am still terified that she might end up being "a bunch of flowers" by the side of the road.[-o< So, as a parent I think I'm in favour of the proposed changes.

[ravingdavis]

A very old news story but i dont think changes are needed, it will make very little difference. Your first year of driving is dangerous regardless of how old you are.

[Drew Carey]

Yes it is old.....for some reason it ended up on the BBC's "Most popular stories NOW" list.

I also agree, that making it 18 would be unlikely to change much. But I do think we need more driving lessons....not just driving around.....but more structure....with specific skills learnt and tested.

[punyXpress]

. . . and attitudes.

[timwilky]

I had 6 lesson and passed my driving test age 17 in 1977, never had a fault accident in a car and probably average of 40,000 miles/year. I had mate who passed on his 17th birthday. Lessons teach you to pass not how to drive. If you want to teach that you need to change the test.

Two of my neighbours kids wrote off cars in days of passing. Both I guess down to the fact they are 17 year old lads with more car than ability.

Should the system change for young driver? I don't think so.

[dirtydog]

I also agree, that making it 18 would be unlikely to change much. But I do think we need more driving lessons....not just driving around.....but more structure....with specific skills learnt and tested.

Makinng it 18 wouldn't change a thing, if you're going to drive like a moron when you're 17 that's not going to suddenly change when you turn 18 is it? Hell i'm 31 and I still drive like a muppet sometimes!

The thing with the lessons is they're teaching you to pass a test not to drive and I reckon that's where aprt of the problem is.

More skills learnt and tested? Only thiing that will change is how much money driving instructors charge and how much a test will set you back. A driving test at the moment will cost about £60 (cant remeber the exact amount though) Kitkats daughter has just booked a re-test for herself

So tbh it's all a load of rubbish

[Biker Biggles]

. . . and attitudes.

This is what causes the vast majority of accidents and no amount of testing can do much about it.You could argue that if you make the test harder the arrogant passees would be even more convinced that they were superhuman drivers.

[Drew Carey]

So tbh it's all a load of rubbish

I agree it is all a load of rubbish. I learnt to drive on farmland etc, did a few lessons on the road then took test and passed. Was I ready for driving on the road???? No......even I made mistakes, but I was lucky.

I don't have a great idea of how it can be solved......but something does need to be changed in the long term I feel.

[dizzyblonde]

Keep chavved up corsa's off the roads is what I say,

More room for old hooligans like me to learn :-)

[dirtydog]

I agree it is all a load of rubbish. I learnt to drive on farmland etc, did a few lessons on the road then took test and passed. Was I ready for driving on the road???? No......even I made mistakes, but I was lucky.

I don't have a great idea of how it can be solved......but something does need to be changed in the long term I feel.


I only had a few hours of driving lessons before passing my test 1st time :cool:
Was I ready to be on the road? Probably not but wasn't too bad as I'd been riding my 125 on the road for over a year by then.
The way I see it is good driving will only come with experience. Have been trying to drum a lot of what I learned over the past 14 years of driving cars, vans and a couple of years on the lorries and some of it has sunk in but she's still a bit rubbish at forward planning

[malks]

lets be honest its not just car tests, bike tests are equally as bad! you learn enough to pass the test, then you actually learn to ride/drive. how you can pass your driving test having never experienced driving on a motorway, then just because you have passed the test be allowed to, is beyond me.

it is all down to individuals attitudes though, when i was 17 i was prob driving about 30k a year between work and my hobby. so i gained a lot of experience driving different roads/conditions etc. but some of my friends still dont give full respect to the roads and conditions round them.

[dizzyblonde]

How you can pass your driving test having never experienced driving on a motorway, then just because you have passed the test be allowed to, is beyond me.

.

Mainly because you have ten million more cars and lorries to pile up on top of each other if you make a mistake going faster than you would when riding/driving locally.

If I'd have gone on a motorway before I'd have passed my bike test I'd have sh1it me pants. The way I got thrown onto one at the deep end after passing was probably a baptism of fire, but it has made me a very comfortable motorway rider, in fact, I like it there more than on the twisties!

[Bluefish]

Motorways are far safer than any other road fact.

[Nij]

[QUOTE=malks;2238203]lets be honest its not just car tests, bike tests are equally as bad! you learn enough to pass the test, then you actually learn to ride/drive.

very true, but learners are taught more these days.
When I took my bike test (when God was a boy) You pitched up at the test centre, rode a figre of eight circuit around a few local roads, and if you didn't get pulled for speeding they gave you a full licence

[454697819]

nope.... change what they can drive, its worked on bikes apparently :-)

[G]

An age change would not change a damn thing.

Changing what they can drive probably wouldn't either, you can get yourself in to just as much trouble in a 1.1 106 or 206 as you can in daddys' BMW 3 series.

Infact of all the deaths locally here in the last year most have been in small engine cars...

The BIG difference was there was normally multiple death because the young drivers had 4 of their mates in the car and were showing off or being egged on.

The best change they could make would be to the rules like they do in Ireland.

P (r) plater for 1 year, restricted passenger numbers and limited to driving between certain times, like not after 10pm when most young people are messing around in cars and crash.

[yorkie_chris]

Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

I have a 19 year old daughter who's been driving for a year now, still waiting for her first prang and a reasonable driver but, I am still terified that she might end up being "a bunch of flowers" by the side of the road.[-o< So, as a parent I think I'm in favour of the proposed changes.

You'd rather be taxi service? :-P


People, especially young ones, get killed occasionally. Sh*t happens. More personal responsibility, less legislation.

[ChrisSV]

Im only 18 atm , and am currently attempting to learn to drive, ive had 5 lessons, but when i first turned 17 i tried and gave up after 10 lessons cause i was bored (dont really like cars) and i learnt to ride a bike instead. Ive been riding for about 18months, all year round. And now ive come to attempt to drive again, i find meself a mch better, more confident, more careful and considerate driver cause ive been riding bikes in all manner of conditions on all manner of roads. I am not a perfect driver or rider, infact im still pretty rubbish and inexperianced. But my idea is to make people ride a bike, cause it makes you more aware of hazards and road conditons and the such like
oh yeah, changin the age will do sod all, me and me mates are all the same now were 18 as aposed to 17, we havnt changed a bit.

[Red Herring]

Motorways are far safer than any other road fact.

Not if you're on a bike they're not. Yes you are less likely to have a crash on a motorway, but if you do you're far more likely to be killed, usually because you get run over by something else.

[littleperson]

Changing the age wont make a difference
Restriction on car engine size may
There should definately be a ban on maotorway driving til you've done extra tuition(maybe this should be for many others toooo!!!!)

My daughter learnt to ride first then drive and she admits it was agood way round as she learnt to respect the roads and treat all on them as idiots. Her driving instructor was more than impressed at her road awareness. She pranked my dcar the first night out - hit a wall reversing that taught her even more about respecting cars.

Its so easy for 17/18 year olds to obtain cars of their own these days they dont respect what happens if it all goes wrong cos they invariably get bailed out by mummy and daddy

[-Ralph-]

nope.... change what they can drive, its worked on bikes apparently :-)

An age change would not change a damn thing.

Changing what they can drive probably wouldn't either, you can get yourself in to just as much trouble in a 1.1 106 or 206 as you can in daddys' BMW 3 series.

Infact of all the deaths locally here in the last year most have been in small engine cars...

The BIG difference was there was normally multiple death because the young drivers had 4 of their mates in the car and were showing off or being egged on.

The best change they could make would be to the rules like they do in Ireland.

P (r) plater for 1 year, restricted passenger numbers and limited to driving between certain times, like not after 10pm when most young people are messing around in cars and crash.

I think a capacity limit would work. Most kids get killed in small engined cars because that's what they were driving at the time. That doesn't mean the same driver wouldn't have crashed sooner if he had access to a more powerful car.

Insurance does this for us to a certain extent, but a 23 year old could have got full no claims, be employed in a nice job, and buy a Subaru WRX. I come from shall we say a "privileged" background and guys at my private school sixth form had MR2's, etc. Some had 2CV's. I can tell you who did more wrapping round trees! One guy wrote his MR2 off three times and daddy just kept buying a new one and paying the insurance.

Powerful cars can arrive at the next corner at a untenable speed, regardless of how much momentum they already have, which means that they'd be more likely to crash on more corners. Going fast in a small car requires getting the speed up and keeping it there. A car that stuggles to get up to 80-90mph on a country road and needs momentum to keep it there, is less dangerous in the hands of a 17yr old, than a car that can get up to 120mph with no effort at all.

Limiting passenger numbers and times of day would be good too.



Not if you're on a bike they're not. Yes you are less likely to have a crash on a motorway, but if you do you're far more likely to be killed, usually because you get run over by something else.

Surely if there is considerably less risk of having an accident, then all things considered then it's safer?

How do you arrive at a conclusion on these things without statistics? ie: airplane is the safest way to travel, until it drops out of the sky and then your dead for sure = same principal, all things considered the plane is safest.

Or your three times more likely to be involved in an accident in Spain than in the UK, therefore Spain is more dangerous.

What do the statistics say, do more riders get killed on motorways than on A roads?

[yorkie_chris]

Limiting passenger numbers and times of day would be good too.


I can't see any advantage to limiting times of day... it's ridiculous.

Many young people have bar jobs, you want to put people in a vulnerable position walking home at 3am? Mental, the very idea is a complete confirmation of the current government attitude of "punish everyone for a minority action". You really want to think like those knee-jerking left wing idiots sticking their noses into every facet of life?

Young people may be likely to hit a tree at 10pm... however there's less chance of wiping out into a bus stop full of kids than at 10am.

Like a car full of 'stanis around here... some honda civic RRR thing, 5 of them in the car, 16-19, all stoned, 90mph into a wall. Unbleedinlucky. Would they have paid any attention to a curfew? No chance.


That's one of the very few knee jerk reactions I've read on here that actually boils my p*ss.

[ChrisSV]

Passenger numbers and times would probobly cause more harm than good.
i work shifts, and im regularly coming home after 10 at night and 6 in the morning, and i cant walk i work 30 miles away from home. Plus we do a lift share scheme at work, and il be in on this when ive passed me test so limiting passenger numbers would cause problems aswel. And i know alot of younger people are in the same situation. Like YC said doin that would be a case of punishing all cause a few broke teh "rules"

[Lozzo]

Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

I have a 19 year old daughter who's been driving for a year now, still waiting for her first prang and a reasonable driver but, I am still terified that she might end up being "a bunch of flowers" by the side of the road.[-o< So, as a parent I think I'm in favour of the proposed changes.

Absolute cobblers.

In that case you may as well raise the age to 50, or raise it to "until both parents are dead and buried", because if you have those worries now, you'll have them forever more.

There's only so much "think of the children" crap I can take, and it's half the reason why this country is full of useless young tossers who can't do a sodding thing for themselves. I agree that kids should be kids and sheltering them from certain things is normal parental behaviour, but let them grow up once they are old enough to support themselves, for christ's sake.

EDIT - By the way, I say this as the father of four kids, one of whom had his first driving lesson today, on his 17th birthday. The other three are girls aged 18, 20 and 28, who all have their own cars and the eldest one has just traded a GSXR600 K8 against a brand new GSXR750.

[yorkie_chris]

Jesus, 24 posts and noone has said it yet.

Pics of daughter :)

[-Ralph-]

I can't see any advantage to limiting times of day... it's ridiculous.

Many young people have bar jobs, you want to put people in a vulnerable position walking home at 3am? Mental, the very idea is a complete confirmation of the current government attitude of "punish everyone for a minority action". You really want to think like those knee-jerking left wing idiots sticking their noses into every facet of life?

Young people may be likely to hit a tree at 10pm... however there's less chance of wiping out into a bus stop full of kids than at 10am.

Like a car full of 'stanis around here... some honda civic RRR thing, 5 of them in the car, 16-19, all stoned, 90mph into a wall. Unbleedinlucky. Would they have paid any attention to a curfew? No chance.


That's one of the very few knee jerk reactions I've read on here that actually boils my p*ss.

You're going to have a sore d1ck for a while if you get boiled p*ss!

I meant limitation on number of passengers at certain times of day. That wouldn't stop bar staff getting home from work, or car sharing during the day.

Other European countries have a limitation on the number of passengers whilst on the equivalent of P plates at any time of day, and have done for years, and see less youngsters having accidents than us, so it's not a knee jerk reaction, it's a proven methodology.

As for a bunch of kids in a Civic RRR. Do you see them driving along whilst smoking a huge obvious splif or resting a can of beer on the windowsill? No, because they know they would get stopped by the cops if they did anything so blatantly visible. If no rear seat passengers after 10pm was a law, that would be something blatantly visible to the cops too. If they did ignore it it may mean they get pulled before they hit the brick wall (even if for some it wouldn't be a bad thing).

I know your very liberal Chris, and I don't want to see unnecessary laws, half the new laws that get made in this country/EU are b0ll0cks, like the size of a flippin' banana (!), but there's some things we are pretty antiquated on and young drivers is one of them. As much as my parents managed to teach me to be sensible, like wearing a condom, no amount of lectures would slow me down on a bike or in a car, it took accidents for that to happen, and I have only really stopped racing around in the last 5-8 years (I'm 34).

[yorkie_chris]

As for a bunch of kids in a Civic RRR. Do you see them driving along whilst smoking a huge obvious splif or resting a can of beer on the windowsill? No, because they know they would get stopped by the cops if they did anything so blatantly visible.

Haven't been to Bradford or around the dark areas of Halifax recently have you?

[ceeshaw]

Not if you're on a bike they're not. Yes you are less likely to have a crash on a motorway, but if you do you're far more likely to be killed, usually because you get run over by something else.

+1
Busy motorways give me seriously big eyes sometimes... One tumble and the beemer on your bumper's gonna be all over your @ss!!

[Red Herring]

Surely if there is considerably less risk of having an accident, then all things considered then it's safer?

How do you arrive at a conclusion on these things without statistics? ie: airplane is the safest way to travel, until it drops out of the sky and then your dead for sure = same principal, all things considered the plane is safest.

Or your three times more likely to be involved in an accident in Spain than in the UK, therefore Spain is more dangerous.

What do the statistics say, do more riders get killed on motorways than on A roads?

I do know that if I were to have a crash on an average single carriageway then there is a chance I might just slide, but most likely I'll end up against some roadside furniture that may or may not do me in, depending on what it is. It might be a tree, but then again it might just be a grassy verge...
If on the other hand I come off on a Motorway the most likely cause is from hitting debris in the carriageway and if that happens it's going to be at speed, and I'm either going to go through the shredder that makes up the central barrier, or down the carriageway where I'll be on offer to the next vehicle down the road.

Statistics, who knows. They can generally be slanted to tell you what you want to hear depending on what you ask of them. I do know from personal experience that I have dealt with literally dozens of motorcycle offs on single cariageway roads where the rider has walked away (but not always), but every single one I've been to on a motorway has been fatal for the rider involved. (If you want another statistic over half the emergency calls the police deal with on the motorway network involve some kind of debris. Think about that next time your flat out up the third lane in the middle of the night....)

[-Ralph-]

(If you want another statistic over half the emergency calls the police deal with on the motorway network involve some kind of debris. Think about that next time your flat out up the third lane in the middle of the night....)

I know that one, I do about 35-40k a year between the car and two bikes, and I phone in to report a significant and dangerous piece of debris about 2-3 times a year

The last piece of 'debris' I came across was a broken down Mercedes on this left hand bend
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Solihull,+West+Midlands+B90+4XW,+United+King dom&ll=52.346823,-1.803517&spn=0,0.055747&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.346844,-1.803659&panoid=WFimaI7rNDe3L_V_KLa_mA&cbp=12,298.59,,0,12.76
which was stationary in lane 2 though with it's right wheels over the white line, and with it's indian family of passengers milling around the carriageway, one woman standing on the white line between lane 1 and 2, casually looking at the broken down car. I was doing 75 mph (110 ft per second), in lane 2 when I came round the bend. If I'd being doing 90mph, she'd probably be dead.

[yorkie_chris]

Darwinism in action by the sounds of it

[fizzwheel]

It wont make any difference, I drove like a tw*t when I was 17, I drove like an even bigger tw*t when I was 18... TBH quite honest at times I still drive like a tw*t now.

I wander how our accident statistics compare to the USA where IIRC kids are taught to drive at 16...

[ceeshaw]

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

[Stuuk1]

I havent read all of the posts here but agree with what most of the posts I have read and that is that it wouldnt change a thing.

Im 23 now, and was a bit of a 'boy racer' when I first passed. It would make no difference if I a year older.

I also believe you learn nothing until you have your first crash. I had my first crash on a roundabout in my Firesta Si 1.6 where a mate infront in another car decided to do a handbrake turn while going around it..... Dont ask! He was an idiot.

Since then, I calmed right down until I was able to afford a 2.2 Honda Accord Type-R. It was an amazing car and at the age of 19, I was still as immature as when I was 17. I did stupid speeds in that weaving in and out of cars on a busy motorway (it was filmed and I watched it back). I couldnt believe how stupid I had been and havent done it since.

Anyway, to cut this short, I believe that yes, do your test at 17 (learn young) but be capped in what you can buy, not by price of insurance but by engine size and bhp. Give them a car that cannot exceed 60mph (this would limit them to the inside lane on motorways) until they are 21. And also limit the 0-60 speed so that racing is completely pointless and therefore cant and wont be done.

[Stuuk1]

Jesus, 24 posts and noone has said it yet.

Pics of daughter :)

Agreed! Where are they?!

[ravingdavis]

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

Of course there is a difference between 16 and 17... it is the point at which society can abide people driving, 17 is acceptable, 16 would not be. In an ideal world you would judge an individual based on how responsible they are and make that reflect in the age at which they can drive. You simply cannot do this. The age is set at 17 because that is the age at which most people can be trusted with a car, set the age higher and you unfairly penalise those people who should be on the road. An arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere, it is drawn at the age of 17 and I agree with it.

[BanditPat]

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

What difference did that 12 months make for you then? Because I know for a fact its made no difference at all to me pointless to raise the age it wont actually achieve any thing.



Anyway, to cut this short, I believe that yes, do your test at 17 (learn young) but be capped in what you can buy, not by price of insurance but by engine size and bhp. Give them a car that cannot exceed 60mph (this would limit them to the inside lane on motorways) until they are 21. And also limit the 0-60 speed so that racing is completely pointless and therefore cant and wont be done.

A car that cant exceed 60mph? A mate of mine has a car that only just exceeds that and takes an age to get there tiny little thing he went into the back of some one at about 10mph in traffic a while back and it just crumpled no chance I would drive that in hell and limiting cars so they wont do 70 on the motorway just means that when they overtake the trucks going 4mph slower your going to be stuck behind them in the midddle lane because of all the tosser middle adged blokes in there beemers flying past in the outside lane doing 90 odd mph and you cant get in. What do the people who are driving in their parents cars do as well? daft idea really IMO. And like with bikes 21 before you can have at least instant access to anything with any remote sniff of power ruins it at least the 33bhp on a bike will get you to a decent speed fairly quickly. I honestly dont see what age has anything to do with it its experience that counts for most of it, being 21 and just passing your test doesent make you any more able to handle a 500bhp car than being 17 and just passing your test.

[keith_d]

As a general observation, this does seem like another bit of tabloid politics, "Think of the children!!". Except that these "children" are old enough to have started a family and held down a steady job for a year or more. Let them make their own minds up as far as possible, we don't need more "Nanny know best"

But, let me see. The statistics show that inexperienced drivers have more accidents, no s**t Shirlock. So we want to make harder for them to start accumulating experience. What???

I'm with the people who want to make it safer for them to build up road experience. Limiting the power-to-weight and top speed for the first two years after passing the test would make a lot more sense than making teenagers spend an extra year on a moped which is statistically much more dangerous.

Restricting them to one passenger might help a bit too because a bunch of rowdy mates in the car is a pretty effective distraction. Been there, done that.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

[metalangel]

In Ontario you can get the equivalent of L plates at 16, and move on to driving on your own within 8 months (instead of the normal 12) if you pass a ministry-approved driving school course (which I did).

Did I crash? Yes. Because I did something stupid (raced across a parking lot, and hit/flew over a curb).

[EssexDave]

Absolute crap. What if you work at night and car share? Emergancies? There must be a million reasons why you might need to drive after 11pm with people aged 10-20.

Encourage better roadcraft and attitudes, in my opinion, are the best ways to improve young drivers on the road.

(I passed when I was 17 and have been driving for 3 years and have never had a car accident which was my fault - 1. woman lost her licence for dangerous driving, and second my car was parked)

[ceeshaw]

What difference did that 12 months make for you then? Because I know for a fact its made no difference at all to me pointless to raise the age it wont actually achieve any thing.

Made a huge difference to me... but I grew up in South Africa where almost everybody leaves school aged 18... or nearly 18. Most 17 year old's are still in school. So I was in University when I got my drivers licence (the day after my 18th birthday).

I'm not convinced school-going children should be driving cars of any power. Youngsters still have car accidents in SA - but I'd bet a months wages that if you lowered the age by one year, you'd have more kids driving and more would be killed... thereby proving that raising the age reduces the number of kids killed in car accidents... at least in SA.

Keep 'em in school for another year... make 'em catch the bus!! Builds character it does!! ;)

[yorkie_chris]

you'd have more kids driving and more would be killed... thereby proving that raising the age reduces the number of kids killed in car accidents..

You're mixing up causes there.
If more people drive of course there will be more crashes, if less people drive there will be less crashes.

I think the age of 17 is fine. I know some knobheads, I know some competent and careful ones. You've got to have a cut off point with any law.
The knobs you get will still be knobs in a years time.


The only thing I'd change is to make it illegal for parents to fund the whole thing, but try enforcing that one!

[metalmonkey]

I don't think age is the biggest problem, I have far more problem with people who take many attempts to pass a test and only did so casue they learnt the process. My iold housemate failed nearly 10 times before passing. I was in the car with her I was like your going the wrong, she was like I don't like turing right:rolleyes:

Also people who come from other countries they drive a year here on a foregin licence and opening the gates to Europe, these people don't drive to our standards and casue many problems. I'm not saying that this always the casue, but I have just seen a lot of this happening.

Surly it should based abaility not age? But yes age has to be factored in as well.

[Bri w]

Age will make little difference but i do accept that maturity that comes with age might. Education, and showing youngsters how dangerous being a prat can be might help.

That said, I'm the wrong side of 50 and i still love 'pushing it' on the twisties irrepective of whether I'm in the car or on the bike.